1970-12-18

PRIVILEGE


Mr. J. B. Morison (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning on a question of privilege affecting members of the Standing Committee on Regional Development in general and more particularly myself. It was reported in the Toronto Star of December 17 that I had charged that the opposition was delaying the Christmas recess. The report goes on to state that the committee could not adjourn for holidays before dealing with the problems of unemployment as we were trying to do through Bill C-205.
There are some people in this world who have illusions of grandeur, but I should like to assure the House that I am not one of them. I know very well where the power in this House lies, and it certainly does not lie with chairmen of committees.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John B. Morison: The incorrect attribution of such powers to chairmen of committees is incorrect reporting affecting the affairs of the House. It could also lead to some very dangerous impressions with regard to other committees. I also believe that such irresponsible reporting puts the members of a committee in a poor light so far as the people of Canada are concerned. I assure the House that the members of my committee were most co-operative inasmuch as they had a very serious bill to consider and a very short time in which to do it.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members will recall, on Friday last, December 11, a petition was presented to the House by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis). There was unanimous agreement at the time to receive the petition and have it considered in some way. The procedure was novel and I undertook at that time to the House to have discussions and to see whether the matter of the petition might be pursued. Since then I have had discussions with the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and a few moments ago with a few other members of the House.
It appears that there is a general disposition to agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that the subject matter of the petition presented to the House by him should go to one of the committees of the House. There was a difficulty in determining which committee that would be, but I believe there is now an agreement that the subject matter of the petition should go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I doubt whether there is any point in discussing the matter further, but if there is agreement, there might be an order to proceed on this basis. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Weatherhead.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That the House adjourn immediately after returning from attending Royal Assent to Bill C-211 (Supply Bill) and to any other measures; and
That it shall stand adjourned until 2.00 o'clock p.m., Monday, January 11, 1971, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet-at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy
2188
December 18, 1970

Adjournment Motion
Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two points I wish to make with regard to this motion. I hope that we will be able to have Royal Assent later today. In order to reach that objective, the House will have to agree to waive the normal rules with respect to Bill C-205, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act. My short comment on this motion may give the House an opportunity to decide unanimously to allow this bill to be discussed today and to move it through all its stages. It is my expectation that we will have Royal Assent, depending upon the other place, shortly after we have dealt with that bill.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I think the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has indicated the hope of hon. members that we will be able to proceed with this bill through all its stages today, allowing adequate opportunity for debate and discussion, so I have no objection to the proposition.
I must point out, however, that this is a bill of considerable magnitude and importance, parts of which have not been acceptable. It is hoped that when bills of this nature and character are brought forward by the government they will be tabled for first reading so that members of all parties who have a deep interest and concern will have an opportunity to examine them, make their case and make adequate preparation for second reading and committee hearings. This did not take place with this particular bill. I must file this caveat and make this request of the government. If the proceedings of this House are to be conducted properly, opposition members, private members, will need to have adequate time to examine the details of the legislation.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to agree to the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) regarding the time of adjournment and the length of the recess. We are also prepared to give consent to the necessary waiving of the relevant Standing Orders so that we can deal with order number 47 and pass the bill through all its remaining stages today. I assume that this includes, of course, the right to deal today with the report stage amendment which is on the order paper, and that, in the spirit of co-operation which is being displayed, any other adjustments which are necessary will be agreed to.


Mr. Peters:: Including other amendments.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather that in addition to the terms of the motion there was a suggestion by the President of the Privy Council, the details of which I shall not repeat. Is it agreed that we proceed with the consideration of the legislation in question as suggested by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: This requires the unanimous consent of the House. There does not appear to be unanimous agreement and in these circumstances the only thing we can do is to proceed with the motion as it has been put by the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in the two official languages the report of the study committee on bankruptcy and insolvency legislation together with two statements being issued herewith.
The report contains proposals for changes and recommends that a new Bankruptcy Act be enacted to deal in a comprehensive way with both commercial and noncommercial bankruptcy. The government, for its part, has examined the report and is in general accord with the recommendations of the committee.
The revision of our bankruptcy and insolvency laws ranks high in the list of priorities. I should like to introduce a bill as soon as possible, and I should therefore appreciate it if interested associations and organizations and the public in general could give me the benefit of their views on the report and their suggestions before the end of January next so that those views can be taken into account in our drafting work.
In conclusion, I want to express the thanks and gratitude of the government to the members of the committee, Messrs. Tasse, Honsberger, Carignan and Landry, for the work they have done in preparing this report.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for providing us with a copy of the report and an indication of his remarks in sufficient time for us to be able to comment with a little more precision on the subject matter.
The report, as we see it, makes an extensive review of bankruptcy legislation as it is applied not only in Canada but elsewhere. It draws attention to the fact that the Parliament of Canada has exclusive legislative power in the field of bankruptcy and insolvency, and that these two subjects have been broadly interpreted by the courts. As the report further comments, in the operation of federal legislation in this area Parliament has come into conflict with the exclusive legislative competence of provincial legislatures, particularly in connection with the administration of justice, property and civil rights and other matters. Some provinces have taken steps to deal with such questions involving insolvency, such as the

December 18, 1970

orderly payment of such debts, and la loi Lacombe in the Province of Quebec.
I wonder, however, whether the minister is right in asking for comments by the end of January since he intends to bring in legislation at an early date. I suggest to him that because of the vastly changed social and economic conditions it would be better to refer the report to the appropriate committee, say the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, and that the public be invited to make representations and comments with regard to it. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no point in making representations to the minister himself, with the minister then introducing a bill which would have to be commented upon and likely severely attacked and modified in committee. I suggest that in the long run the better procedure would be to refer the report to the committee and have representations made publicly, not to the minister. It is not the minister and his officials who are going to decide the bankruptcy law of this country; the provinces have something to say, as does also the public.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to look at this report and therefore I cannot make any lengthy or intelligent comment upon it. However, this party is extremely interested in the report, which affects not only commercial and general trade activity but also individuals, particularly small businessmen. As we know, for a long time there has been a need for revision of the bankruptcy and insolvency laws. All I need say at this time is that we promise the minister, the government and also the people that we will give this report careful study and will co-operate as much as we can in bringing forward in the House updated and satisfactory bankruptcy legislation.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to express my appreciation to the minister for tabling in the House this report which has been expected for six years at least.
Having had an opportunity to study it this morning,
I must agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
I suggest that this report should instead be referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, for it contains more than 110 very important recommendations. These recommendations, however, are not divided by chapters. They deal with the bankrupt, the registrar, the public trustee and also the procedure for obtaining release. These recommendations are very important in my opinion, but we should instead have an opportunity to study this report in the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee to help the minister, and as he has just stated, to be able to make interesting suggestions, for after a quick glance at this report, I still note further shortcomings in the present Bankruptcy Act.
For instance, as far as courts are concerned, it is recommended that the Superior Courts of the provinces
23568-67}
Fisheries Closing Lines
be the ones empowered from now on to settle bankruptcy problems.
It is now common knowledge that in the bankruptcy field some dilatory disputes, instead of being brought before Bankruptcy Courts, are referred to Superior Courts, and these being over-burdened with cases, it takes at least three years to obtain a decision, which in turn delays decisions in Bankruptcy Courts, to the detriment of the bankrupt and the trustee.
Some regulations I consider to be valid but on the other hand, if we want to study the pros and cons, it is very important that the minister, before asking us to submit written recommendations to assist him in introducing a bill, should give us an opportunity to examine the whole file within the Justice and Legal Affairs committee, where we will be able to help him to prepare his bill and take into consideration amendments not provided in the recommendations, and also see that the recommendations submitted this morning are implemented.



FISHERIES


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, by amending the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act earlier this year Parliament laid the foundation for the establishment of exclusive Canadian fishing zones comprising certain areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada. These provisions were enabling only. The creation of new zones requires executive action by way of an Order in Council.
I am pleased to inform the House today that the required action is now being taken to draw "fisheries closing lines" across the entrance to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy, Queen Charlotte Sound and Dixon Entrance-Hecate Strait. A government notice to this effect will be published in the Canada Gazette on December 26, 1970.
The fisheries closing lines will become effective immediately upon the expiration of the mandatory 60 days waiting period imposed by the amended Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.
The special areas to be enclosed by fisheries closing lines are important fishing zones for Canada. The Gulf of St. Lawrence has had annual landings of up to 550 million pounds of fish valued at $31 million, the Bay of Fundy s landings are about 300 million pounds yearly, worth about $12 million, and the Pacific Coast area has landings of 180 million pounds, worth $37 million.
Having established these new fishing zones, the Canadian government intends to conclude negotiations for the phasing out of the fishing activities of certain countries which have traditionally fished in the areas concerned, namely, the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Spain. Canada has recently entered into an agreement on reciprocal fishing
December 18, 1970

Fisheries Closing Lines
privileges with the United States and the activities of United States fishermen in the areas concerned will not be affected by the promulgation of the fisheries closing lines.
Anti-pollution provisions of our Federal Fisheries Act and the Canada Shipping Act will apply within the limits of our new fishing zones, thus adding additional scope to Canada's efforts to preserve and improve the marine environment around our shores.
I would now like to table a four-page statement which was prepared in consultation with the Department of External Affairs. It provides additional information on the promulgation of the fisheries closing lines as defined by the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. May I ask the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, to have this statement appended to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For statement referred to above, see Appendix.]


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries which indicates that action will finally be taken to conserve some of our fisheries resources. I know this announcement will be welcomed by all Canadians, and it will be especially welcomed by fishermen and processors on the east and west coasts.
While waiting for some action on this matter, many of our fishermen were beginning to realize the meaning of the word eternity, for history records that legislation respecting our territorial waters and fisheries laws was introduced by the Hon. Paul Martin, then Secretary of State for External Affairs, with much fanfare back on May 20, 1964. At that time the minister said that the bill respecting the territorial sea and the fishing zones of Canada was not enabling legislation. "On proclamation , he said, "the 12-mile fishing zone will be established- there can be no doubt about this point." A lot of fish have passed over the rails of foreign fishing vessels since that date. Today we see our fisheries resources seriously affected. In fact they have been depleted to the danger level as a result of the inaction and procrastination of this government.
I would point out that the announcement made by the minister today is long overdue, and in our view it is only a beginning. It is only the beginning on the long road back toward obtaining and retaining fishing resources which rightfully belong to our Canadian fishermen. However, I say it is only a beginning since the action taken today will leave many problems still unresolved.
The exclusive fishing zones, for example, as announced by the minister are not complete protection for the stocks of fish on our coasts. The only way to provide for proper conservation is to vest in the coastal states ownership and jurisdiction over the fishery resources on the continental shelf. This would be a logical extension of the United Nations convention on the continental shelf which already recognizes ownership of resources on and under

the sea-bed of the shelf. Even this would not provide protection for anadromous species like salmon which roam far to sea during their early stages. Canada's Atlantic salmon are being intercepted on the high seas of the Atlantic, and the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fishery has expressed grave concern about the depletion of this valuable resource. In our opinion, nothing short of universal acceptance of the abstention principle will adequately protect Canadian salmon on both coasts.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
Finally, this country must do everything within its power to work toward convening another United Nations Law of the Sea Conference at which we must strive for acceptance of at least two principles. One of these principles is the continental shelf concept for our fisheries resources. The other is the universal acceptance of the abstention principle for an anadromous species like salmon. In order to bring this about we need someone in the Department of External Affairs who recognizes the value to Canadians of our fishing industry, as it is obvious that the present minister does not share our concern. In fact, the present minister was only recently in Europe and he made no effort, according to his own statement to me in the House, to resolve the differences which exist between Canada and France over fishing rights surrounding the French-owned islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. In view of the importance of the fishing industry I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will consider strengthening the Department of External Affairs with someone knowledgeable on fisheries matters so that progress can be made at the international level toward solving some of our thorny fishing problems.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation to the minister for his kindness in sending us a copy of the statement he made earlier so that we could have a look at it. I think it might have been worth while if we could also have had a look at the four-page statement to be appended to Hansard. It would have made his statement more meaningful because the statement the minister made is sufficiently bare to leave a few gaps in our understanding of what has taken place. I believe it also indicates that we cannot have a great deal of faith in what the minister and the government say concerning fisheries matters because when the bill to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act was before the standing committee during the last session the minister said that in a matter of a few days he would have the fisheries closing lines established, but those few days have dragged on into seven months. That does not lead us to have much faith in the pronouncements of the minister about what he intends to do but indicates that we should pay more attention to what he does or does not do.
One point that has been dealt with extensively before the committee and in fishing circles, a matter with which we have concerned ourselves for some time, is the extension of our jurisdiction to the continental shelf and continental slope. The minister himself made a great play on that idea before the committee and elsewhere, saying
December 18, 1970

that it was the intention of the government to extend jurisdiction to those areas so as to include groundfish as well to the extent we would have jurisdiction over it and to prosecute the fishery to the full extent on continental slope.
A few years ago the committee on fisheries which examined the estimates unanimously recommended to the government that the fisheries jurisdiction of Canada be extended to the continental shelf and slope. This has been completely ignored by the minister in his statement today and up to this time. There is no indication in the statement that any consideration is being given to that matter. In fact, its phraseology in terms of drawing fisheries closing lines across the entrances to certain waters indicates to me that this matter has in fact been completely ignored.
In dealing with fisheries we must concern ourselves with two fronts: first, the extent to which we can extend our jurisdiction to the edge of the continental slope and, second, the extent to which we can involve ourselves in international agreements with other nations to ensure that the fish of the high seas which originate in our land are preserved to the fishermen of this nation. We have a potential lever which was not used. If the government had taken the action of extending the fisheries closing lines out to the continental shelf and the edge of the continental slope, we might have been able to prevent the minister giving the right to the Soviet Union to fish inside our territorial sea, as he did earlier this year.
To return to the point I made about the degree of faith we should have in the minister, when he was asked in the House about the agreement with the Soviet Union he said he would gladly refer that matter to the standing committee. So far he has forgotten about that as well. I think we need a little more action and concern not only on the part of the Department of Fisheries but also on the part of the Department of External Affairs, and less froth and foam.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the minister for providing us with an advance copy of the French version of the statement he has just made.
We are very happy that the government has taken these measures, thanks to the excellent work of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.
Fishermen on the East coast have been requesting a measure of this kind for a very long time, in order to keep for themselves the fish crops, and we are proud of it. Also, in order to control in the future pollution dangers in our territorial waters, such action was called for, I believe.
Therefore, we commend the good work of the minister and we hope he will continue to be interested in fishermen and all interested parties for the greatest good of all Canadians.
Post Office POST OFFICE



ANNOUNCEMENT OF IMPROVEMENT OF SATURDAY WICKET SERVICE

Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that main post offices and most postal stations in urban centres will return to complete counter service on Saturdays.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: This is to replace the limited service offered since the start of five-day week letter carrier delivery in February 1969.
Extensive surveys were taken of the services provided on Saturdays, and these have shown a need to make services such as stamps and money orders available again at the majority of offices studied. However, the surveys also indicated that the need varies widely from city to city and even in different sections of some cities.

The hours of Saturday service at individual offices and the selection of locations to provide the increased service will, therefore, be determined by community needs. This will be left to the discretion of senior field managers who are familiar with local conditions and service demands. The improved service will begin on a regular basis from January 9, 1971. A Merry Christmas to all Post Office employees and to all customers of the Post Office.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by thanking the minister for his courtesy in providing, in good time and in both languages, copies of his statement. Indeed, I would say to him that his general considerateness and courtesy have detracted somewhat from the spice and enjoyment of the role I am trying to perform on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party.
I am impressed by the strangeness of the fact that it has become necessary to announce in the House of Commons a resumption of postal service to the Canadian people. I appreciate the fact that it is being done but it is surprising that it was necessary that such an announcement be made. I think, Sir, that this action marks another repudiation of the more preposterous and tortuous innovations of the minister's predecessor, and I commend this minister for his willingness to recognize that certain events, incidents and developments of some months ago were in fact very bad mistakes.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
I note that it required "extensive surveys of the services provided on Saturday." This, I thought, would hardly have been necessary. No major inquiry should have been required because hosts of Canadians do have difficulty in transacting business with the Post Office on days other than Saturday, and many Canadians combine a visit to the Post Office with their Saturday shopping. I think it was not required to have a massive inquiry into that.

December 18, 1970
Post Office
I am a little concerned also about the suggestion of flexibility. It seems to me that there is now too much variation in the postal service. Rural Canadians get six-day delivery, urban Canadians get five-day delivery, and there are many Canadians in suburban areas who are not quite sure where they stand or where the postman is going to come from and on what day.
As I said at the beginning, I commend the minister for taking this remedial action, but I say to him that it will not be sufficient. The five-day mail service has been a fiasco, and the sooner we get back to six-day mail service, which most countries in the world have, the better it will be for all, including those in the Post Office. Much of the delay in the mail delivery in Canada-and it has been appalling in the last few years-stems from this lost weekend, this blackout of mail delivery from Friday until Monday, which is followed by a backlog of mail that has to be worked through on Monday, and the delays sometimes last until Wednesday. This is part of the problem.
I commend to the minister's attention the recommendations of the Davey Committee on the mass media. I am not one of those who believe that the Senate is a useless body. I hope the Prime Minister in future days will remember my regard for it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I referred yesterday to a question based upon the report of the Davey Committee which said something that many of us have been saying for a long time, namely, that the new postal rates were most injurious to newspapers in the country. It also made a very strong statement on the five-day delivery. It said:
What we do urge to assist these (daily) newspapers-and almost ail weekly newspapers-is the earliest possible resumption of Saturday mail deliveries. The lost weekend has hit some newspapers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask, Sir, what I have done?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made an excellent statement but it appears to the Chair that he is ranging far and wide. The statement which the hon. member is allowed to make according to the Standing Orders should be closely related to the statement made by the minister. The minister dealt with only one aspect of the postal services, but it seems to me that the hon. member is going somewhat beyond the very limited scope of the statement made by the minister. That is why I thought I should invite the hon. member to return as soon as possible to the substance of the statement made by the minister in charge of the Post Office.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your advice. I was merely commending the minister for what he has done and urging him to do a little more. I was quoting one sentence from the report of the Davey Committee on mass media. I do hope that the minister will rediscover still more of this lost weekend and that we will have even more service on Saturday than that which he has announced today.
I commend him for the return to normalcy, and I hope that this small step today wifi be followed by a giant step tomorrow. I also join him in wishing merry Christmas to the postal employees.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, the
announcement of this partial restoration of the once proud Canadian postal service will no doubt be welcomed by the people in the areas to be affected. I think it is notable that the public of Canada has had very little to welcome from such announcements in the past two years. Under the present government there has been a notable decrease in service and a substantial increase in postal rates, as well as long drawn-out labour disputes. Part of the trouble involved in the Post Office may be related to the fact that in the last 11 years we have had seven and a half Postmaster Generals. They have not been in office long enough to learn the business, even by mail. Like the previous speaker for the Official Opposition, we hope that the announcement today of this small step restoring part of the service that we used to enjoy will be a mere forerunner of many other such steps in line with those suggested for a long time by the opposition. In wishing the minister a merry Christmas I can assure him that his Christmases will be merrier and merrier in line with his co-operation with the logical proposals of the opposition to improve the service.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues of the Ralliement Creditiste, I wish to offer my sincere congratulations to the Minister without Portfolio who is responsible for the Post Office (Mr. Cote) for having announced today the re-establishment on Saturdays of a service that is essential to the people.
Mr. Speaker, the former Postmaster General (Mr. Kier-ans) stated in the House on September 27, 1968, as shown in Hansard of that date, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I have a statement regarding changes in the operations of the Post Office.
Our studies have indicated that several services are no longer lequired to the same extent as in the past. Business firms generally are operating on shorter hours and on a five day week. There is not, therefore, the same need to provide postal service on week ends when most businesses are closed.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion may I say that the former Postmaster General did not realize that the Post Office is a public service, while the new minister appreciates the fact that the Post Office may have deficits but remains a public service. This is why we congratulate him warmly and encourage him to change the orientation of his predecessor's policies so as to give the Post Office Department back to the population whereas before it belonged to one person only, the Postmaster General.
We want the Post Office Department to be the department of the Canadian people and not only that of a minister. We believe that the present minister is the man for the job and he is off to a good start. We hope that in the new year the minister will continue in this right direction.
[Mr Macquarrie.]
December 18, 1970



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: This is not my normal day in the House, Mr. Speaker, but it may be the last occasion before the festive season or before the recess when I can make a statement on motions. I welcome this opportunity to report briefly regarding a matter of interest to all members of the House. It concerns the collective bargaining currently in process between the railways and certain unions representing some of the employees of the railways.
As members are aware, some time ago I announced the appointment of what I described as industry specialists to assist in the process of minimizing industrial unrest and, more particularly, to assist in obtaining collective agreements prior to the expiry date of existing contracts. Hon. members may recall that this approach resulted in an early settlement in the railway industry in 1968.
I am pleased, therefore, to announce that it can be safely stated that the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway will sign within the hour a memorandum of settlement with unions representing some 20,000 shopcraft employees. This constitutes, if ratified, a settlement ten days before the present contract expires.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
In conclusion, I would like, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute not only to the representatives of the unions and the companies but also to our industry specialist, Mr. Arthur Gibbons, and my director of conciliation and arbitration, Mr. William Kelly, who have worked very closely with the parties for several weeks. In my opinion, both Mr. Kelly and Mr. Gibbons remind us of the fact that our public servants rank with the best in any country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word or two in response to the welcome announcement just made by the Minister of Labour. We are glad to learn that a settlement has been reached and that the signing of it is in prospect today between Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway on the one hand and representatives of the shopcraft unions on the other. I have no objection to the minister taking credit for his department for the good job that has been done. It is a good job for the industry and a good job for Canada.
There is just one point I should like to make, Mr. Speaker. If my information is correct, the issue of pensions was not on the table, at least toward the end of these negotiations, and that is probably one of the reasons why it has been possible to reach agreement. I suggest to the minister that as far as the other railway unions are concerned there is a good deal more anxiety over the pension issue and that settlement in those cases may not be possible within the forseeable future.
Business of the House
I therefore urge the minister to do everything that he can on the issue of pensions. In particular I urge that he make available these good offices that he has spoken of, and his own good offices, to his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to get Canadian National Railways to realize that if they would comply with the unanimous wish of this House of Commons concerning pension increases the whole issue would be settled a lot sooner and we would have peace in the railway industry.
This is a terribly important part of the whole railway issue, and it is not good enough for the government not to get involved in it. The Minister of Transport is a good man but he needs help, and I urge the Minister of Labour to give him that help so that this issue can be settled, preferably before Christmas.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: If I might have leave of the House I would ask whether we might establish the proper relationship between the motion on the order paper in the name of the President of the Privy Council and the disposition of Bill C-205. As I understand it, the House is of the opinion that we should proceed to deal with Bill C-205 both at the report stage and at subsequent stages despite the provisions of the Standing Orders. If that is the view of the President of the Privy Council and other hon. members, possibly the House might make its views plain at this time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this is the ambition of the government and if the words of the opposition House Leader could be put in the form of a House order that would be very helpful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
gave our agreement earlier, Mr. Speaker, and we still stand by it.


Léonel Beaudoin: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-213, intituled: "An Act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (Minimum residence requirement)".

December 18, 1970
Proposed Legislation


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, a considerable number of people in Canada would be disposed to participate fully in the life of the country but they are prevented from doing so by the fact that they have not yet been granted Canadian citizenship.
Therefore, this bill is designed to reduce from five to three years the minimum residence requirement for persons applying for Canadian citizenship.


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


Barry Mather: for leave to introduce Bill C-214, respecting packaged perishable food.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require, to the extent that it may be done under federal authority, that all packaged perishable foods shall bear a label, readily seen and easily understood by the consumer, stating the date after which the food is not to be sold.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that inadvertently the Government Notice of Motion concerning the referral of the third annual report of the Department of the Solicitor General to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs was dropped in the English version of the order paper. The French version carries the notice.
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
December 16, 1970-The President of the Privy Council:
That the annual report, for the year ended 31st December, 1968, made pursuant to section 30 of the Penitentiary Act, contained in the third annual report of the Department of the Solicitor General, tabled in the House of Commons on November 3, 1969, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and
That during its study of the aforementioned report, the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, the said Notice of Motion is transferred to and
ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question about science policy. In view of the criticism of the science policy of the government by the committee of the Senate on science, following upon criticism by the OECD some time ago, does the government propose to act in the area of developing a coherent science policy or does it propose to await the further volume of the report of the Senate committee on science?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Both, Mr. Speaker. We have been acting and of course we will be able to act with even more enlightenment after we have received the final report. I understand it is expected about half-way through next year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since some of the blame for the lack of a coherent and effective science policy is attributed by the Senate committee to the overriding authority of the Treasury Board, does the government intend to act in this connection? Without any offence to the President of the Treasury Board, I should like to know whether the government intends to place this responsibility in another ministry in view of these criticisms?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this criticism has nothing very original about it. I remember telling the House about two years ago that the reason we had asked the President of the Treasury Board to also look after science, even though we recognized some apparent disadvantages, was that the minister was so able in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: He has spent too much time on the Auditor General; that is his trouble.


An hon. Member:: Stop smiling, Bud.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House will recall that in the Speech from the Throne we indicated our intention of establishing a minister who would be responsible for science. I understand that this is what the Senate science committee report has indicated. I also remind the House that we have in our government organization bill, which the opposition parties are now studying, provisions which will permit us to appoint a minister whose responsibility would be for science.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, since as Senator Lamontagne, the very able

December 18, 1970

chairman of this committee and a former member of the cabinet, described the carrying out of science policy in this country in these words, "we are last where we should be first, and first where we should be last," will the Prime Minister begin now to take steps to try to rectify this confusion in which the government so often finds itself in following its policies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a description which would apply very much to the Tory party also.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Now, Pierre, don't you tease.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think, despite that, they may want to help by co-operating with the government in expediting the adoption of the government organization bill, so that we can proceed with this next step.


George Harris Hees: Since the previous Conservative government never encountered problems of this kind but had a cohesive science policy, we would be glad to step across the aisle and help the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CONTRACTING OUT OF RESEARCH PROJECTS TO INDUSTRY

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board who now is the minister responsible for science. Inasmuch as last year industrial scientists complained that the government was not making full use of their services in the development of better manpower policies, will the government now consider the conclusions of the Senate science report, namely, that more research projects ought to be contracted out to industry in order to involve these scientists more fully in Canadian affairs.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. gentleman will examine the estimates, he will see that progressively more and more research projects have been contracted out to industry rather than being undertaken in government laboratories. That is part of a continuing policy.



URANIUM


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Before doing so, I wish to raise a question of privilege affecting the rights of the members of the House. Yesterday, the hon. member for South Western Nova asked the minister if he would
Inquiries of the Ministry
make a statement on his discussions in Japan. The minister said that he had not intended to do so but that he would give consideration to that suggestion. The minister then went out and, at a press conference, discussed the very thing that he had not discussed in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I submit that Members of Parliament ought not to have to depend on fragmentary reports of a press conference appearing in the newspapers in order to know what government policies are.


Gerald William Baldwin: They are reports concerning a fragmentary minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nor
ought we to have to depend on questions based on these press reports if we are to question the minister intelligently.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
minister, in the press conference, is quoted as saying that he believes it would be politically and economically wise to have an uranium enriching plant built in Canada with Japanese capital. I wonder if the minister could give us some information as to whether this is to be an enriching plant which will be wholly owned by a Japanese corporation, whether the corporation will be putting up all the equity capital or part of the equity capital, whether there will be any Canadian participation and whether the announcement that the former chairman of the Japanese Atomic Energy Board has given his support indicates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might like to give the minister an opportunity to reply to the first questions. It seems to me that the question is becoming a little too long.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I will put it to the minister in the simplest possible terms. Will the minister tell us what he envisages to be the kind of program under which Japanese capital would be used to establish an uranium enriching plant in Canada?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, speaking first to the hon. member's question of privilege, I regret very much that I beat him to the television cameras yesterday. I guess it was my day to be swift. Answering his actual question, may I say that no decision has been reached so far. During the course of our Japanese visit, we found that the Japanese reactor and utilities people were very anxious to have a fourth enrichment plant outside the U.S.A. so that they could have another source of supply for enriched uranium. We argued the Canadian case. We said that we had uranium in Canada, that we had low cost hydroelectric power which would be the soundest base for such a plant, that the capital cost of such a plant could not very likely be borne by Canada alone inasmuch as it would cost in the neighbourhood of $1 billion or more, and that
2196

December 18, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
we would welcome Japanese capital in such a venture, if it became feasible. No finite arrangements were made. No definite plan was arrived at. We merely did some selling, if you like, with respect to the Canadian position and the attractive opportunities in Canada in this regard.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is the same question of privilege that was raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I had hoped that the minister, who I believed entertained a respect for Parliament, would give some reasonable explanation as to why this had happened. I realize that there is nothing any of us can do to prevent a minister from making a statement outside the House that ought to be made inside the House. But I did not think I would live to see the day in Parliament when a minister would dismiss such a thing in such a lighthearted way and indicate that he had rushed as quickly as possible to the television cameras in order to make a statement that he had been asked to make in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Although I recognize that there is nothing that I or any other member of the House can do about this, I hope that the members of the government will develop sufficient respect for this institution that they will not be contemptuous of the House in such an obvious and frivolous manner as the minister has just indicated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the hon. member's question of privilege and righteous indignation, may I say that I have sufficient respect for the House that I use its time circumspectly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John James Greene: I do not waste the time of the House. If hon. members opposite would follow this example at times, we could get the business of the House done much more speedily.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether we are progressing very much at this point. I wonder whether the minister might not agree, unless he has a further statement to make in reply to the -question of privilege raised initially by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands and later by the Leader of the Opposition, that we return to the question raised originally by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. Bell:: The minister's appeal is dismissed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Inasmuch as the government's policy has generally been understood to be that the control of uranium should stay very closely within the ambit of the government of Canada and the Atomic Energy Control Board, will the minister give the House the assurance that in any proposal for building an uranium enrichment plant in this
country, the majority control will remain in the hands of either the Canadian government or the Canadian people and that any equity capital from Japan or elsewhere will be in the minority position or will be in the form of loan capital rather than equity capital?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Leader of the Opposition has rushed to the television cameras and could not stay to hear the answer to this very important question.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to advise Joe the Joker that the Leader of the Opposition has not gone to the television cameras.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: He has definitely not.


An hon. Member:: He has.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Cheap, cheap!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


George Harris Hees: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that we have already spent a good deal of time on the question raised by the hon. member which has developed into a question of privilege and deteriorated further in the process. I should like to go on now to the next question and return to this one in a short while. I think we are being unfair to the hon. member for Lotbiniere who has been waiting for 15 minutes for the opportunity to ask a question. Immediately following his question, I will return to the point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Perhaps the atmosphere will clear a bit in the meantime.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
[Mr. Greene.J
December 18, 1970

In view of the fact that over 44,000 CEGEP graduates will be without work when they finish their courses, according to Quebec Labour Department statistics, that unemployment is still increasing in that province, according to a joint news release of the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and finally that 42 per cent of the unemployed in Quebec-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may not make a speech. He must put a question. If he refers to the Standing Orders, he will see that he is given the floor at this time to put a question and not to enumerate a long list of facts. I therefore invite him to put his question as soon as possible.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The more one waits, the more ideas come to his mind.
I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether, at this moment, the government is studying the particular problem of young unemployed graduates and whether it considers giving direct financial assistance to those young people until they find a job on the labour market?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will recognize, after consideration, that this question was asked yesterday or very few days ago, but in any event, it has been asked and since the time of the House has been monopolized to a certain extent, the House might allow the right hon. Prime Minister to answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that a few weeks ago, the government announced a series of new projects aimed at palliating the unemployment problem in the country. As I had the opportunity to mention it a few days ago, the government does not intend to discriminate between the young and the not so young who are unemployed. We intend to help them all. But since the hon. member particularly stated the case of graduating CEGEP students, it offers me perhaps an opportunity to remind them that the prosperity of the province will depend to a great extent on the possibility of attracting investments and that an atmosphere of violence which many among them advocate is not beneficial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André-Gilles Fortin: I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since the atmosphere of violence has partly been settled, thanks to the co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, and since the consequences of that crisis has been borne by both of them, have discussions been held to improve the climate and attract investments in Quebec in order to enable young people to find a place within the community and earn their living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer must be given by the House which is considering a bill which, we hope, will be passed today with the co-operation of the opposition parties and this will specifically have an effect to attract investments in Quebec.
23568-68}
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I suggested a moment ago that we might return to the question raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I am not sure whether the minister actually replied or attempted to reply.



URANIUM


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: will repeat the question so that the minister will have an opportunity to answer. Having regard to the fact that the policy of the Canadian government has been understood to be that the control of the production and processing of uranium should stay strictly in Canadian hands, particularly under the control of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada, can the minister assure us that any uranium enrichment plant will be under Canadian control and that any foreign control will either be in a minority equity position or in the form of loan capital?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government has no intention of changing the current rules whereby the export of uranium is subject to the authority and permission of the Atomic Energy Control Board, with the further safeguard of ratification by the government.
In so far as financing is concerned, I think it would be premature and hypothetical to determine how the financing of such a project might be undertaken. In my conversations with the Japanese, I stated that, whatever may be the rules regarding foreign investment in Canada, we would continue to welcome foreign investment on the basis of their investment to date, namely, by minority holdings in Canadian companies and with a preponderance of debt financing by foreign sources rather than equity financing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I saw
the minister's statement to that effect and I welcome it. I am now asking whether the statement with reference to foreign ownership being confined to either a minority position or loan capital will apply with regard to any uranium enrichment plant in Canada in so far as Japanese or other foreign investment is concerned?


John James Greene: I do not think that the government has made any decision in this regard. The matter of whether there will be a plant is still hypothetical. I think it would be premature to determine how we should finance it. In my statements to the Japanese in this regard, I was not stating government policy. I stated that, whatever government policy was with regard to foreign investment, and this will be announced shortly, foreign investment was required in Canada on the basis of a minority holding

December 18, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
in Canadian companies and largely by debt investment rather than a majority equity holding, and that this would continue to be favoured by the Canadian government.


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: In view of the minister's statement that the whole position with respect to the enrichment plant process is still somewhat up in the air, will he assure the House that before a final decision is made on the merits of Canadian financial control, the problem of pollution, and so on, the whole issue will be weighed against the relative merits of developing Minas Basin tidal power?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that before any final decisions are made and when there is something specific to announce, it will be done in this House in a proper manner. To date, there is only a possibility and the matter of informing the Japanese that we welcome their suggestions in this regard. At this stage it would not be proper to present anything to the House because there is nothing specific to present. When there is, hon. members may be assured that I will report it to the House.



AIR CANADA


George Harris Hees: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. If the minister has not already done so, will he investigate the lay-off of 50 reservations personnel in Ottawa by Air Canada to ensure that these people are offered alternative employment and are not simply part of a large-scale lay-off plan of Air Canada and Canadian National Railways across Canada? Also, will the minister ensure that the service to the public is not downgraded as a result, since it is most important that first-class service be available in Canada's capital?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do what the hon. member suggests. I have some preliminary information I can give to the House. I have been advised by Air Canada that this consolidation of reservation services and the like is part of a program policy in effect in other parts of Canada. A minimum of 25 of those who will be affected will be offered alternative employment immediately in, I believe, the Montreal centre where this will be carried out. Since the whole scheme will not take effect until October of next year, it is anticipated that by that time some of the employees will have left through the normal attrition process. Other employees will be offered employment in other parts of the country. Their usual travelling and moving expenses will be covered.


George Harris Hees: Did the Prime Minister notice the first-class manner in which the minister answered the question and will he take that as an example for the future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the well-answering minister whether he was consulted regarding this decision by Air Canada to transfer telephone reservation facilities from Ottawa to Montreal, whether those consultations were with regard to the whole plan of the airline, and whether the minister approves of that plan?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think the hon. member knows as well as any hon. member in the House that in terms of this type of management I am not consulted. I have, of course, had conversations with the management of Air Canada with regard to their general management plans for the immediate future. It was in this context that the question of centralizing the reservation process was discussed. It is, in fact, becoming a common practice now not only in Canada but throughout the world.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister to be good enough to look into this decision by Air Canada, since not only jobs are involved but also service to the public in the capital of the country, and undertake to make a statement to the House on motions when we reconvene in the new year informing hon. members why this decision has been made by the airline?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not certain that the residents of the capital city, important as it is, are any more important than the residents in any other part of the country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister would reply to the question as quickly as possible. Hon. members will notice that we have not been moving very rapidly this morning and there are only a few minutes left before the end of the question period. I hope there will not be too many supplementaries from now on.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will answer briefly, Mr. Speaker. The whole objective is an improvement in efficiency; it is a matter of giving better service. But I shall be glad to consider the hon. member's suggestion and see what I can do.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambion-Keni):: Bearing in mind that booking services will be centralized many miles away from flight origins, will there be an improvement in meteorological forecasting such as this proposal would necessitate?



CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


John B. Morison: I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State. Would he be good enough to ask the minister whether he knew, when he appointed Ivan Ritman to the Canadian Film Development Board, that Mr. Ritman had been convicted last June of possessing, printing, making and publishing an obscene film?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[Mr. Greene.l
December 18, 1970



WATER RESOURCES


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Notice was taken by his Parliamentary Secretary of the question I asked last Wednesday, which involved several departments, but since the minister was in Yellowknife recently, and knows the facts, I am putting it to him. Will the minister assure the House that he will immediately convene a meeting with the governments of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan to deal with the use of the waters of the entire Mackenzie River system, having in mind the imminent danger which threatens and the fact that by next spring the need to allocate the use of these waters will arise? Will the minister tell us whether he is now willing to have this question referred to a standing committee for discussion some time in the new year, as I have suggested to him?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and myself met last week with ministers from Alberta, and I know that my colleague has had talks with ministers from British Columbia. We are dealing actively with that problem but I wish to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that if the former government had been a little more careful-


Gerald William Baldwin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I asked a legitimate, reasonable question and I would appreciate an answer.


An hon. Member:: You got a pretty good answer, too.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is the government prepared to refer this matter to a committee, or it is afraid to do so?



SEMINAR ON DEVELOPMENT OF MARKETS IN UNITED STATES FOR ATLANTIC PROVINCES' PRODUCTS

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he is in a position to answer the question I put to him last week regarding the establishment of a business seminar in the Atlantic provinces to assist industry to develop greater markets in the United States.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I am writing the hon. member giving him a list of seminars, conferences and meetings of all kinds in the Maritimes in which my department has taken part in the last two years. This policy is a permanent one. I shall be studying, with the Minister of Regional Economic
Inquiries of the Ministry
Expansion and with my department's regional officers the need for the type of seminar the hon. member suggests, and if it appears desirable to do so we shall be delighted to take part.


Robert Carman Coates: Would the minister be willing to participate himself in an effective way in such a seminar in the Atlantic provinces?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I should be delighted to receive an invitation.



SHIPPING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to inform me of the latest developments in response to the urgent necessity for a search and rescue vessel being stationed in Sydney Harbour or its vicinity?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am
delighted to be able to tell the hon. member that the coastguard vessel Wood is now being renovated and crewed, and as soon as she has been fully equipped she will be placed in the search and rescue service in the general area of the gulf. The matter of where she will be stationed will be determined after we have decided where the vessel can best be employed, but she will be stationed wherever it is demonstrated it is best for her to be.


Robert Muir: Is the minister aware that thousands of men who go to sea, as well as their families, have been waiting for this announcement for a long time? Is he also aware that his two predecessors ignored the pleas put forward by myself-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: May I pose my question?


Mr. Speaker:: I drew attention a few moments ago to the fact that we shall be running out of time in a short while. However, I will allow a supplementary to the hon. member.


Robert Muir: May I ask the minister if I may, on behalf of all those concerned, thank and commend him and wish him and his family the happiest Christmas ever?
# * *



AIRPORTS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question, too, is directed to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the new site for the Toronto area airport. Have the minister's department and the provincial authorities yet

December 18, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
arrived at a formula for obtaining options on the four sites which are particularly under consideration?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Meetings between representatives of the two governments and the officials took place yesterday or the day before. I am not sure how much progress was made; they have not reported to me as yet. But I am hopeful they will do so within the next day or two.



HOUSING


Francis Andrew Brewin: Earlier in the week, Mr. Speaker, I addressed a question to the acting minister in charge of housing. I now direct it to the minister himself in the light of the statement made by the Secretary of State that the project for an expressway in Montreal, which would butcher residential districts and demolish some 2,000 houses, should be replaced by an alternative scheme to provide for an underground expressway. Will the minister undertake to look into this matter and explore what action might be taken by the federal government to encourage the one project and discourage the other?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Any decision with regard to an expressway would, of course, be the prerogative of the government of the Province of Quebec. However, we are extremely conscious of the need for housing in Montreal. In fact, we have invested, in greater Montreal through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, some $150 million during the past year to produce about 12,000 lower income housing units there. I shall be discussing this matter with my counterpart in the Province of Quebec, but I would not venture to make any further comment about the expressway at this time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister consider discussing with his government colleagues the possibility of providing some incentive for constructing an underground expressway which would not result in the demolition of housing, rather than the present plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour, but in view of his absence I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. Is it the intention of the Department of Labour to permit *companies providing supplementary unemployment insurance benefits to take advantage of increases in unemployment insurance benefits to reduce the company's contributions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked contains allegations, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might give a quick answer to the question.


Mr. Ray Perraull (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of the Minister of Labour it should not be the intention of any companies providing supplementary unemployment insurance benefits, including Devco, to take advantage of the increase in unemployment insurance benefits to reduce company contributions. Regulations will be introduced that will specify in general terms-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a statement.



HOUSING


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence which is a follow-up to a question I asked his colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Housing on December 4. May I ask whether the minister has had time to explore ways by which, hopefully, more economic housing might be provided members of the armed forces serving in posts where married quarters are not available?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Naiional Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank my hon. friend for notice of his question. In response to his specific question of December 4, may I say we have had extensive discussions with CMHC in this regard, but because an essentially federal agency is involved none of the $40 million will be made available at the federal level; it will all be made available to the provincial governments.
Having said that, however, we are very concerned with the impact of high rents on members of the armed forces, particularly in some of the larger metropolitan centres. We have been having extensive discussions with housing authorities with regard to the possibility of trying to alleviate this problem. At the moment, I am afraid I have nothing very promising to indicate either to the hon. member or to the members of the armed forces.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, since this is probably, and hopefully, the last day before the Christmas recess, may I take advantage of this occasion to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour whether there is any change in the status of CN hotel employees in relation to the federal minimum wage law. My question is prompted by the fact that there are a number of unions in the process of negotiat-
December 18, 1970 ______________ COMMONS
ing a new contract for employees of CN hotels and the results of those negotiations will be dependent on the attitude of the government in regard to this matter.
Might I also be permitted to add a final part to my question? May 1 ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether there are any CN hotels in Canada at the moment that are honouring the minimum wage laws of this parliament?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, in view of the settlement arrived at with the Chateau Laurier hotel in Ottawa the other day, there is hope that the general problem may be resolved in the near future.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY EXTENSION OF NAVIGATION SEASON-UNDISTURBED ICE AROUND POWER INSTALLATIONS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport concerning the importance of the seaway to the economic well-being of the country, and particularly the port of Hamilton. In light of the expressed need for an extension of the seaway season from 8J to 10 months or more, is the minister taking into consideration the problem that exists with hydro officials who have indicated they require to have undisturbed ice around their turbines? Has the minister anything to report in this regard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No
Mr. Speaker, nothing specific. We are aware of the problem. It is another example of the inherent difficulty of trying to keep the system open for the longest possible time. This does create problems for other interests. We are doing our best to resolve the problem, but beyond that there is nothing more that I can say.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I ask one short supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his answer, but can he give the House any indication when the Carr report will be made available, since this report may help to alleviate the situation by providing solutions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have not read the complete Carr report but I do not recall a chapter heading having to do with undisturbed ice. However, I think some of my Christmas reading will include finishing reading the report with a view to publicizing it, or those parts of it which are of public interest, as soon as possible.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of
DEBATES________________ 2201
Inquiries of the Ministry
Transport. In view of the protests that I am sure he, as well as other hon. members, have received about the CNR's proposal to discontinue their Panorama transcontinental tram service from Toronto to Winnipeg, has the minister discussed this downgrading of passenger service with the CNR?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This, of course, is another of the notifications given by both railways with respect to passenger service. However, as the House and I am sure the hon. member know, this matter is now before the CTC. I am not sure whether this particular matter is the subject of an actual hearing at the moment, but certainly the whole question is. It is my judgment that the normal procedures should be allowed to prevail. In the event that the people do not like the judgment, there is machinery for appeal and it is at that point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period has expired at this point. The question is whether we should allow supplementaries to the question that is now before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement of CNR that it intends to downgrade the service between Ottawa and Montreal, which is certainly well travelled, is the minister discussing with the CNR their whole policy on passenger service, which seems to be moving very quickly in the direction of the policy earlier adopted bv the CPR?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of specific routes, as the hon. member knows I am bound to a great extent by the National Transportation Act, which provides that in so far as individual services are concerned they must be adequate for the traffic offered. The CN's position, as I understand it, is that their proposed schedule is adequate for that purpose. There are grounds and means through which that kind of assertion can be appealed. However, on the broader question, may I say I have talked with officials of CN and I think it is quite important that there be adequate passenger service within a framework that is consistent with traffic offering. May I assure the hon. member that I shall be watching the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
ST. JOHN, N.B.-MEASURES TO ASSURE SURVIVAL OF POTATO EXPORT INDUSTRY Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
[Stage Direction]
December 18, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the many questions and representations from hon. members from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island could the minister tell the House whether the railway companies have accepted to be more concerned about the welfare and survival of the export potato industry as far as the harbour at St. John is concerned?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the question is urgent, but I am sure it is not supplementary to the previous question. However, the question having been asked perhaps the minister might reply to it.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with the railway with regard to the whole question of the new rates for export shipments of potatoes. I have been told by Mr. Mac-Dougall of the railway as of this morning that further talks are taking place. There appears to have been some misunderstanding-I am not altogether sure whether on the part of the shippers or on the part of the railway- particularly with regard to the charge for the retention of cars, which appears to be the most difficult part of the problem. The indication that I have had, and I do not want to be too hopeful, [DOT] is that some amicable solution can be reached within a very short time.



SHIPPING


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary or related question to the one asked the Minister of Transport a moment ago by the hon. member for The Sydneys. The question is urgent in that it is generally conceded that officials within the minister's department are-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put his question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I must give a bit of background. The officials are doing a first-rate job in assisting in gathering weather data. However, from complaints received from fishermen, especially at this time of year, it has become obvious that this weather data is not getting through to the fishermen. Would the minister undertake to make a study to ascertain whether the manner of projecting weather forecasts can be improved upon, and would the minister endeavour to increase the frequency of broadcasts of weather forecasts which are so beneficial to our fishermen?


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council what business will come before the House after the recess and will he assure us that the second reading of veterans' pension legislation will be done of the first items?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will indicate to the hon. member now that the veterans' legislation will be one of the early items to be called. I could indicate a number of other items that will be called early, including crop insurance legislation, the trade agreement between Canada and New Zealand, the export development legislation and the Yukon Minerals and Northern Power Corporation.


Gerald William Baldwin: What about the budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will keep in mind the suggestion of my hon. friend and also the suggestion in respect of the budget. I am not certain which day it will be called but it will be called early.


James Aloysius McGrath: What about Beaupre?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-205, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I move:
That Bill C-205, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act, be amended in Clause 3 by adding to subsection 4 of section 5 the following:
provided however that any incentive shall be granted only after the applicant has provided the Crown or its designated agency with such number of shares in the application firm that the Minister considers to be equivalent in value to the incentive except that where the amount of the incentive is less than one million dollars the Minister may grant an exemption to this provision.
When Bill C-205 was presented to the House for second reading, Mr. Speaker, members of this party agreed to second reading of the bill in order that its provisions and its implications could be studied further in the committee. We agreed also because we were anxious to help in any way in order that the regional development program could be extended or used usefully in dealing with some of the problems facing Canada. At that time we made it quite clear that we felt the provisions of the bill were inadequate in terms of fulfilling the objectives of it as stated by the minister and the government.

December 18, 1970

We also had serious misgivings about the bill because we felt it jeopardized the principles of a regional development program, and that in fact it might create some serious problems for the future of such programs. Now that we have gone through the committee stage and have had a chance to question the minister as well as hear witnesses who are experts in the field of regional development, we have to say that this is poor legislation. I suggest that the bill before us at the present time will emasculate the regional development program.
At the committee we heard from the minister and the deputy minister regarding this bill. They did not present an opening statement, they simply said they would answer any questions we had. That is a rather unusual procedure, one which I find is becoming too common on the part of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). The minister and the deputy minister simply took the attitude: We are alright, Jack; everything is fine. Just leave it to us and we will see that everything is fixed up.
This was not good enough, Mr. Speaker, and we heard from a number of witnesses. We heard from representatives of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and the Canadian Council of Rural Development. We heard from Professor Tom Brewis, probably the outstanding authority on regional development programs and policies in Canada. This witness made it quite clear that this bill would scuttle the regional development program. Every one of the witness presented serious criticisms of Bill C-205; and this is a very serious matter, all of them expressed a growing disillusionment with the government's regional development programs as they have been brought forward to the present time.
Then, we heard from the minister and the deputy minister again but they had the same approach. We had to pry information from them. They refused to prepare a considered reply to the representations that had been made by the various expert witnesses who came before the committee. At one point the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion tried to slough off some of the evidence that had been presented by indicating that these were just words of a professor, why should we worry about them? I think it is a very serious matter when the minister refuses to give serious consideration to the points of criticism presented not only by members of the House and members of the Regional Development Committee, but also by some of the expert witnesses who appeared before that committee.
As a matter of fact, the minister and the deputy did not even consider it important enough to have a person there to monitor the evidence presented by the witnesses. They were not in position to reply to some of the points raised earlier in the evidence. I should state that the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister was present. He was very attentive and took part in the proceedings. I was pleased with that part of the performance at least. The minister and the deputy were not in a position to adequately answer the points presented to members of the committee. They were not in a position to adequately answer the criticisms and questions put forward by mem-
Regional Development Incentives Act
bers when they came before the committee the second time.
Consequently, we moved a number of amendments at the committee stage of the proceedings. Most of them were designed to make the best possible bill out of a poor piece of legislation. We at least tried to make it more workable by giving the legislation before us some focus and direction in order that it might be based on some sort of sound principles of regional development. All of these amendments were summarily rejected by the Liberal majority on the committee. I suggest one reason they rejected them all is that most of those members were absent for the testimony of the witnesses. They did not consider the evidence important enough to stay and hear it being presented by representatives of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, the Canadian Council of Rural Development and Professor Brewis. Most of them attended only when they thought their presence was needed to rubberstamp the government's legislation. When amendments were moved by opposition members they would say "no" before the amendments were even read.


Mr. McBride:: That is not a fair comment.


John Stratford Burton: That is true, and the hon. member knows it.


Murray Arndell McBride: It is not.


John Stratford Burton: The hon. member was one of those who took part in the proceedings and he knows very well that is true. The only thing he could do was make noise, such as he is making right now. I suggest the performance of most of the Liberal members of this committee was disgraceful. They performed a poor service for their constituents and the people of Canada in the way they conducted themselves during the committee proceedings this week.
Today, we are moving one amendment which would make a major difference to this legislation. It would change the direction of the government's programs and the direction in which it is trying to take this legislation with Bill C-205. The amendment which has just been presented to the House provides for public equity in undertakings where there is substantial assistance provided by the people of Canada for new developments.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
The amendment which has been moved contemplates a Canada Development Corporation. The government said it would introduce this legislation at this session. When it will come forward is difficult to say at the present time. The government has given no indication. Possibly it will be one of the never-never things for which this government has become rather well known. "Never-never" certainly can be applied to its policies in respect of a Canada Development Corporation. The amendment before us, together with other complementary developments such as the formation of the Canada Development Corporation, would assist in planning a comprehensive

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act approach to regional development. It would also stop the give-aways to large corporations which I suggest is one serious feature in respect of the government's programs as we have them at the present time. It would assist in the process of helping to regain control over the Canadian economy. We must start now and not wait for some manana which may never come. I think it is clear that the government's regional development program is getting into a worse morass every day. This legislation will be the final blow and that is the reason we believe it must be given very close scrutiny and study by the House. It will destroy the program as a regional development program.
As I indicated at second reading, we were prepared to give further consideration to the bill in committee. We were particularly sympathetic to the proposition, which was the government's contention, that this legislation was a key portion of the government's program for Quebec in dealing with problems with which all hon. members are familiar. In the committee we found that it will do nothing of the sort. Every witness pointed out that this program will not be of immediate help to Montreal and other areas of Quebec. We also pointed out that regional economic programs are no substitute for an effective national economic policy. Every witness before the committee pointed out that there is a considerable time lag in the program between its commencement and the implementation and impact of it. It must be considered as a long-run program. This is borne out by the evidence that up to this week only $3.4 million in incentives have been paid out. Let us contrast that with the total amount of offers which had been made under the Regional Development Incentives Act to the end of October, the latest month for which I have a compilation available. Up to October 31, offers had been made under the Regional Development Incentives Act of approximately $102 million. The figure to the end of November of course would be somewhat higher. But only $3.4 million has actually been paid out.
I acknowledge of course that as a result of some of the offers which have been made, but which have not yet been paid out, some work is under way. Certainly, that is an obvious fact. The basic point remains, however, that there is a significant and important time lag in these programs. They must be considered on a longer run basis and as long-run programs. The minister admitted that this legislation would do nothing for Montreal and Quebec this winter. He has admitted that we might as well write off this program in terms of it having any impact during the current winter. I suggest that the minister has performed a disservice to his own province by some of the statements he made before the committee. I think all of us will acknowledge the problems which exist in Quebec, as well as the various problems which exist in other parts of Canada. But the minister seems to have developed a habit of making very strong statements in order to back up his very weak arguments. I think we have had several examples of this over the past few months. It would seem that we have had a further example in some of the statements made by the minister before the committee in which he tried to paint a very
drastic picture of the situation in Quebec and thereby once again exaggerate the problem.
I believe it has been properly said that the finance minister of Quebec could not let these comments pass, even though he is a colleague of the minister in political terms. I should like to quote from the Montreal Gazette of December 16. This is an article headed "Marchand exaggerated-Garneau". The article reads as follows:
Finance Minister Raymond Garneau said yesterday he disagrees with a suggestion by Jean Marchand, federal minister of regional economic expansion, that Quebec's economy is likely to collapse if investment in Montreal does not improve drastically in the next three years.
Mr. Garneau told a news conference he is happy with the federal government's decision to make the Montreal region eligible for economic incentives, but said Mr. Marchand exaggerated when he predicted the province's economy could collapse.
The federal minister made his comments Monday during a meeting of the Commons regional expansion committee examining proposed amendments to the Regional Development Incentives Act.
The amendments would make the Montreal area eligible for a special incentives program until Dec. 31, 1973.
"If nothing happens before 1973 I don't know what problem we would have left to solve," Mr. Marchand said.
The minister seems to get into a regular flap over various matters. First it was over FRAP-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair. The House will meet again at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Stratford Burton: When one o'clock was called I was making reference to the regular flaps that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) seems to get into, his most recent one being with respect to this bill. He seems to be in a panic to do something, to do anything, it would seem, to try to find something that would at least appear to be a solution to some of the problems that he and others have allowed to develop for some time. So, he insists on rushing this legislation through the House at the last minute, legislation which is admitted by all parties in the House to be very important.
I would like to draw to the attention of the minister some of his previous statements when the Regional Development Incentives Act was originally introduced in the House. He indicated at that time that this bill had to be rushed through, the government needed it right away. But then he agreed we must never do this sort of thing again. Now, we are on the same old merry-go-round again.
I should like to examine the amendment which I moved on behalf of the New Democratic Party in relation


December 18, 1970
to the bill before us. I think it must be examined in the light of the operation of the program which is being carried out under the authority of the Regional Development Incentives Act. The first major objection to the bill is that it is being used to accomplish national economic objectives, something for which the program and the legislation were never designed. This was expressed very lucidly by Professor Brewis when he appeared before the committee. Professor Brewis pointed out to the Regional Development Committee at its meeting last Tuesday:
The bill leaves me with a feeling of considerable uneasiness, and as I have listened to the discussion today, I must say that my uneasiness has increased. The bill introduces what seems to be a major reorientation of policy in the direction of measures to reduce cyclical unemployment rather than measures to improve the long run economic potential of the less favoured regions of the country.
Then, he went on to say that he wanted to remind the minister of what the latter said in a speech in Halifax in October of 1968. This is what the minister had to say on that occasion:
I believe that in our business, the sensible effective action will be found in the middle area between short run expedience and vague long run plans.
The minister then suggested that 15 years was a reasonable time horizon on which to do the planning. He emphasized that his first principle was as follows:
We will not offer short run expediency or long run vagueness. Measures must not be selected just because they catch up problems for the moment.
Then, Professor Brewis went on to comment:
I think it is a great pity that the minister did not stick to his guns.
When Professor Brewis appeared before the committee he had some other relevant comments to make with regard to this particular point. He said that the nature of the incentives is not such as to ameliorate significantly the lot of the unemployed in the short run, and from past experience it seems more likely to benefit a large number of companies. Professor Brewis said that with regard to the short run, in his budget speech, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) speaking of important amendments to the Regional Development Incentives Act, said:
It is also very difficult to predict the volume of investment likely to be effective or the probable cost of the incentives. Judging from experience with the program to date, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion foresees a total increase in outlays because of the new program amounting to about $130 million over the period of the next few years.
[DOT] (2.10 p.m.)
That is the end of the quotation from the budget speech of the Minister of Finance. Professor Brewis went on to say:
If we take Mr. Benson's figure of $130 million and assume in the light of past experience (according to DREE estimates) that $5,000 of incentives creates one job then these incentives may create 25,000-30,000 jobs. Since there are currently between 600,000 and 700,000 unemployed, this will result in one man out of 20 getting a job. For this marginal result a massive change in the DREE legislation is envisaged.
Regional Development Incentives Act


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wonder-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps a point of order or perhaps the hon. member would permit me to interrupt to ask when he expects to get into the substance of the amendment, about which we are very anxious to hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would take this to be in the nature of a point of order. I know that the preamble is a bit long and I think at this stage of the proceedings we should try to stay as close as we can to the issue. I know that the hon. member's remaining remarks will be germane to the rather narrow confines of the amendment.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point of order that has been raised. I was trying to set out some of our reasons for moving this amendment; why we feel the government's purpose in implementing this legislation has been inadequate and, thus outline our reasons for introducing the amendment now before the House.
I could quote from other references made by Professor Brewis. One points out that the special incentives are of short duration and that this will not be of very much benefit in the long run. He went on to state:
The job facing the department to effect the long-run economic structural changes which are necessary in the lagging regions is big enough and complicated enough without saddling the department with additional and largely unrelated responsibilities. There are other and more effective ways of reducing local unemployment than paying subsidies to industry.
When Professor Brewis appeared before the committee he gave a number of examples of what could be done more effectively in the short run to deal with the very serious economic problems facing some parts of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret very much to interrupt the hon. member. As I indicated on the point of order, and I say this very respectfully, I think the hon. member is making the type of speech that would be entirely in order on second reading or on clause 1 in the committee stage. I feel that at the report stage we should confine debate to the particular motion before the House, and I should like to ask the hon. member to come to the amendment as quickly as he can.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly keep your suggestion and request in mind as I deal with the amendment that is before the House. This amendment would make a very fundamental and important change in the direction of the regional development program. It is our view that it would save such programs from being destroyed, as we feel they are being destroyed at the present time.
This brings me to the next point. I feel the regional development programs are being destroyed because they will not help the new areas in Canada-


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: What about the amendment?
December 18, 1970

Regional Development Incentives Act Mr. Burton: -to deal with their economic problems. It should be made clear, Mr. Speaker, that these areas could be designated without the legislation presently before us.
Witnesses appearing before the committee pointed out that simply adding 10 per cent of capital costs and $2,000 per job to the present incentive levels in the Atlantic provinces would not help those regions of Canada in their economic development. It was also pointed out that only about four grants have been provided up to the maximum levels at the present time. It seems to me, and this was noted in some of the evidence before the committee, that simply to add to the ante in terms of the incentive levels for the Atlantic provinces will create new problems which have not been encountered before.
It was quite clear during the consideration of this bill that the growth centre concept was in disarray-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I may ask the hon. member, and this is the third time I have asked, to deal with the amendment. It might be helpful to the hon. member and others if I were to read the motion and to indicate, as I have on two occasions already, that the amendment is on a rather narrow point.
The motion reads:
That Bill C-205, an act to amend-by adding-the following: "provided however that any incentive shall be granted only after the applicant has provided the Crown or its designated agency with such number of shares in the application firm that the minister considers to be equivalent in value to the incentive except that where the amount-"
With very great respect I say to the hon. member that he should, and under our rules I think he must, direct his remarks to the point of the ministry or agency requiring that shares be given to it where a grant is given to a company. The Chair wants to be extremely fair, but the hon. member has used more than half of his allotted time without dealing with the amendment so the remainder of his speech should be confined to the amendment before the House.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assure you that my remaining remarks will be pertinent to the amendment before the House. I wish to deal with the growth centre concept and to relate this to the amendment. Wb are calling for a degree of public participation in regional development incentives programs and feel that the public should be provided with a share of the companies being assisted through those programs. In this regard, it is very important to note that the government's original concept, which it developed in this program for growth centres, is in disarray. The adoption of this amendment would help to give the program some better direction and focus. The minister has stated that the special areas had provided some element of growth centres, but nevertheless he hedged and did not want to become too specific.
If we are to develop a growth centre concept and follow it through, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that rather than undertaking programs on an ad hoc basis where you simply consider applications from a widespread area which has been designated by regulation as authorized

under the legislation, the government could help to give some better directions to its programs and some better focussing on this important matter.
This point was stressed by witnesses before the committee, particularly those from the Atlantic provinces Economic Council, who showed that there was considerable confusion in the government's programs. They did not know whether the growth centre concept was being followed and whether it was still one of the objectives of the department. They pointed out the number of problems developing within the Atlantic provinces as a result of the present pattern of dispersal of grants.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member and to ensure that I am not I invite him to indicate to the Chair the relevance between his remarks and the amendment the House is considering.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting it is quite relevant to follow the growth centre concept in the department's proposals, and to involve the public and the government in by requiring that the government receive a portion of the ownership of these companies. It is hoped that when companies receive these grants, they will help to carry through the objectives of the department, objectives which it has stated in the past. There is some confusion at present as to whether these companies are fulfilling these objectives.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I should like to pass on to the next point that I wanted to raise, which I feel is the most important one in connection with the amendment before the House. This point relates to the government's reliance on private enterprise and its large giveaways to corporations. This I feel is one of the most damning features of the government's implementation and administration of this act, and it is one of the major reasons why we have introduced this amendment. A large proportion of the funds which are being committed by this department are in the form of large giveaways to corporations. In the cases where this is simply a giveaway grant, in which there is for a limited period control over the firm receiving the grant, the grant becomes ineffective in terms of the public control of the investment after that time. This matter is too important to be simply left in the hands of private enterprise. The entire development of our regional development program is too important for that. We simply cannot leave it in the hands of private enterprise. Because of the very nature of the problem and the very nature of the solutions, we cannot leave it to private enterprise.
Our regional development problems and regional disparities in Canada stem from the fact that we have allowed so much of our development to take place in the past as a result of a form of giveaways. We have allowed private enterprise to do whatever it wanted, regardless of whether it met the needs of the people of Canada or whether its actions benefited the people of Canada. The size of this program is illustrated by the pattern of grants
December 18, 1970

which have been made by the federal government or which at least have been committed by the federal government at the present time.
I have an analysis before me of grants which were committed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under this act up to the end of September. The analysis shows that the ten largest grants totalled some $48,750,000, out of a total for all grants of $83,168,000. This means that 58.6 per cent of those grants totalled $1 million or over. That is the dividing line provided in the amendment I have moved, Mr. Speaker. It proposes that there be a public sharing in any grant of $1 million or over. These ten companies, as a result of these grants, will provide some 3,309 new jobs out of a total of 14,015 which it is stated will be created by the end of September. That is 23.6 per cent of the jobs which it is suggested will be so created. And that percentage of jobs will result from 58.6 per cent of the grants. These ten companies include Sydney Steel, which is a public corporation, Ecstall Mining IBM, Control Data, McCain Foods, Becan-court Glass, F.W. Pine, C.I.P. Homekakers, T.S. Simms & Company and Askland Chemicals. It will be noted, of course, that Sydney Steel is, as I have mentioned, a public corporation, and that therefore it should be and could be quite validly excluded from this particular pattern. I have done this as well.
If the figures concerning Sydney Steel are excluded, it will be shown that the nine remaining companies will receive about $32,866,000 in grants, or 48.8 per cent of the commitments for grants made to the end of September, the total being $67,284,000. Compare that with the 23.6 per cent of employment out of the total employment to be created through this program, and it will still be shown that there is quite a vast disparity.
These grants are being provided to large corporations; in some cases, they are foreign-owned corporations as well. We feel that the programs could be much better directed if a share in the ownership of these plants were vested in the Crown. I think it should be noted as well that this amendment contemplates the creation of the Canada Development Corporation.
It will be noted from the wording of my amendment that I suggest that the shares in any such enterprise should be vested either in the Crown or its designated agency. Without naming that agency in the amendment, we had it in our minds that the Canada Development Corporation could be and should be that agency.
It seems to me that one of the criticisms of this program is this: there has been an ad hoc pattern of development that has come about simply through the process of responding to applications from firms located in widely spread out designated areas and allowing those firms to decide, on the basis of their own narrow interest, as to whether a plant would be commenced.
A further aspect of this entire program has to do with the grants to foreign-owned and foreign-controlled corporations. It has already been noted that up to the end of 1969, under the various incentives programs, incentive grants were made by the government. They were made
Regional Development Incentives Act under various programs, including old programs now being terminated, and they were made to foreign controlled corporations. These, I suggest, could be controlled more adequately as a result of the amendment that I have moved. There is certainly no indication that there has been any change in the pattern of grants which have been offered under the Regional Development Incentives Act.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we must ask this question: where is the government going with respect to the question of foreign ownership? Certainly the government has indicated that it has directed a statement of policy to be prepared. Just when that will be available is difficult to tell. I am not too hopeful of the final result, especially when one considers the manner in which the department is currently contributing to the further giveaway and sellout of the Canadian economy as a result of grants being provided under this program. I think this is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, because the minister must take the prime responsibility for the destruction of his program. You know, he entered the government as one of the three wise men. It seems to me that something happened on the road to Damascus; or, one might say, something funny happened on the way to the forum. This brought about tragic results-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I must tell the House that his time has expired.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make any extended remarks at this stage of our proceedings. I had some difficulty in relating the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat to the amendment. It is my understanding of the rules that the debate at this stage should be quite confined. We ought to confine our remarks to the amendment before the House. I intend to do precisely that, with this exception: we hope that the speech the hon. member has just made will not be repeated on third reading. That is the type of speech one might expect to hear during the third reading stage of the debate.
I should like to say a few words about the amendment and the position this party takes on it. This amendment was first moved in committee and was defeated in committee. We voted against it at that time because we then felt as we do now that this amendment would make the program ineffective to the point where it would be totally unattractive to any industry which wanted to take advantage of any grant available under the program. This is our main criticism of it.
The amendment calls for participation by the Crown. It proposes that the Crown shall be provided with a number of shares equivalent to the amount of the incentive grant. The hon. member excepts grants of less than $1 million. Unfortunately, we cannot support his amendment. We had hoped that the hon. member would bring before the House an amendment that we could support. We shall vote against the amendment because we feel it will make the program ineffective to the point where it would be totally unattractive.

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
We moved an amendment in committee. We had some difficulty getting our point across. However, I think we did make our point. We expressed our concern over the lack of consultation with the provinces and the agencies of the provinces, particularly the municipalities and regional development agencies. To underline this concern, we moved an amendment in committee making it mandatory for the minister to consult with the 10 provinces because they are all involved in this program, and also with the agencies of the provinces.
Our amendment made it mandatory for the minister to create an advisory board. We stipulated the composition of that advisory board. In the spirit of give and take and in an effort to expedite the business of the House, we arrived at a reasonable compromise which we feel strengthens the bill. In the previous amendment, this was discretionary, as are many things under this program. This was entirely within the discretion of the minister. We were reasonably happy that the spirit of our amendment survived the committee stage. The minister now has to establish an advisory board. I serve notice that it is our intention to very closely monitor the administration of this act. Presuming that the amendment passes, we will await with anticipation the creation of this board. We will be particularly watchful of the people who are appointed to the board.
We hope the minister fully understands the intent of the amendment. In addition to appointing senior civil servants from his department, the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the advisory board, the amendment calls for the appointment of other persons, hopefully those who represent some of the regions of the country directly affected by this program. More particularly, we will be very carefully watching the administration of this program, bearing in mind the reservations which we expressed in committee and which we will be expressing at the third reading stage of this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the privilege of being a member of this committee. I would have liked to have heard the discussion. I have tried to read the proceedings in the committee reports, but I have not had too much success. I would have liked to have seen some amendments introduced at the report stage as a result of those discussions.
We have before us a specific resolution which goes a long way towards solving the problem which, according to the evidence, is the major criticism of Bill C-205. This criticism relates to the almost total coverage of Canada by incentive programs. If there are one or two more amendments, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be involved in every industrial development in Canada. If that is necessary, it is a sad commentary. It does not meet the hopes and aspirations we had for this legislation.
It is generally agreed that when a number of areas are designated, some consideration is given to incentives in slow growth areas. In fact, we must draw these areas to
the attention of those wishing to establish industries. If the city of Montreal, with the largest population of any center of Canada, is designated, this will not help the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) who last year made a very strong plea to have his area designated. I do not have much hope that my area in northern Ontario will be designated, something for which I have fought for two or three years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I know that the hon. member is very experienced and is familiar with the rules of this House. I wonder if he would now come to the amendment. There has been quite a bit of latitude. There will also be the third reading stage.


William Arnold Peters: I thank Your Honour for inviting me to make a speech on third reading. I am from an area which has not received much consideration in the past. This proliferation of designations will not really help. Of the moneys that have been spent, 66 per cent has gone to foreign owned companies, most of them branch plants processing the raw materials of this country. If it had not been for the incentives that were offered, they probably would not have located in those areas.
This amendment provides that in areas when industry will not locate unless there is a very large incentive, we should attach a condition to the contribution we make that the government will receive equity shares. I am sure that many members of my party have already, or will shortly, reach that conclusion. I am sure other hon. members agree that we have to give consideration to the total ownership of specific industries in specific areas. We are going to have to direct our money into specific areas in order to provide employment in those areas at the lowest cost.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
To give one example, we are providing a million dollars of federal money to one company. This program began on the basis of the number of unemployed in an area, the rate of growth of that area as compared with others, and so on. That million dollars meant the creation of 56 jobs, so these jobs were provided at a cost of $21,000 each. If we are thinking about employment, $21,000 related to 2,000 hours works out at approximately $10,000. This is the contribution we have made. Surely, we are interested in a longer term proposition?
It is almost universally the case that companies which locate in areas they would not normally enter do so because of the incentive carrot which is held out to them. They are not likely to be sure-fire enterprises; many are in serious difficulties before they start, and the grant made by the government strengthens their financial position. Many countries which have been using government direction and inducements to establish industry in particular patterns realize they will not necessarily be viable. When money is put into them they are obviously taking a chance. It is true the companies must meet certain criteria before they are considered worthy of support.

December 18, 1970

Bearing this in mind, I do not think it is at all unreasonable for us to ask for a share of the equity capital in these companies. Then, if they are successful, the people of Canada will make a profit. If they fail, at least we have sought to make a contribution to improving the economy of an area. Some of the companies interested in resource development are in a sound position. I should like to mention one industry in which we have an interest, Polymer Corporation. At one time, nobody wanted to put any money in that undertaking. None of the other companies was interested. But when we needed a substitute for rubber to help the war effort, we established the corporation on a sound basis. It was successful, and every year part of the money spent on it is returned to the Canadian treasury. This is as it should be. If that company had failed, it would have failed in an endeavour which was of great importance to Canada, and we would have been willing to accept the loss. This being so, I can see nothing wrong with our having some say in the development of companies which we are assisting.
Let us consider some of the propositions which were handled by the estates set-up in the Maritime provinces. The board established an interest in some of these companies, participated in financial decisions and exercised a limited degree of control. Obviously, when a company is induced to locate where it would not otherwise locate, it is acting artificially and in these circumstances it will often be difficult to make a success of the venture. In my view, those who have been involved in the regional development program, not only under the existing act but under the two or three measures which preceded it, are to be congratulated on producing as many winners as they have. In supporting this amendment, I suggest the Canadian public should have an opportunity to share in both the successes and the failures of this program. Together with share capital equal to the amount of the incentives grant, they would be able to exercise some degree of control over what is happening. I am concerned about some of the companies which, to my knowledge, have gone into the Maritimes with special support. One of them is a large, multi-national operation whose advantage it is to look at the overall picture. If there is insufficient profit coming from one region, the most paying course is to take the grant and get out. One company has done just that. If we had equity capital in these companies we would find ourselves in a much better position to advise or to cajole or even to ensure a greater degree of success by adding more money if necessary.
In the years ahead, depending on the kind of governments in power, the Canadian people will be bound to participate in industrial development projects to a greater or a lesser extent. Decisions will have to be made by government in the next 20 years whether or not to direct industry into specific areas. If the minister listens to the advice he gets from the provinces, he will find that in their view there is scarcely an area of any province which is not entitled to assistance. Nevertheless, the minister has an obligation under the act not to expand this program to the extent that it becomes unsuccessful. After he has specified the areas to be designated, money will
Regional Development Incentives Act have to flow into the new ventures which are established and in these circumstances it seems to me the government ought surely to be in a position to exercise a degree of control.
There are many ways in which control can be exercised. There is the kind of control Parliament exercises over the CNR which seems to me little more than picking up the tab, most of the time. We control various other government corporations in different ways. It seems to me that when it comes to companies, capitalization is really the basis of the control. We all read the financial papers and note the jockeying which is done for control of a company on the basis of, say, a 20 per cent control of the stock. In my opinion, we should consolidate our assistance in specific areas and obtain some degree of control. In the case of some companies which, to my knowledge, have asked for assistance of the kind the minister can offer, they are unable to borrow funds from the banks or raise them on the open market or extend their operations through the issuing of shares, so they would be very happy to take in the federal government as a partner.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The company would have to make some accounting to, for example, a deputy minister, and in this way the government would exercise some control and evaluation of the operation. In the case of a company like, say, Texas Gulf, it is my guess that such a company would not ask for an incentive grant if this meant they had to provide share capital. They would not want their operation diluted by the federal government sharing in the financial structure, and therefore would not apply for a grant. They would not need to apply because their ability to raise capital is better than that of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). I am sure they would be more successful in floating stock than the federal government. However, if they did apply under the program, I can see no legitimate reason for them to do so, either from a socialist point of view or from the point of view of the most conservative free enterpriser. The previous speaker in the debate is, in my opinion, a pseudo free enterpriser, as I am sure he would agree, yet he is not in favour of this amendment. This shows that he does not really believe in free enterprise.
All we are suggesting in this amendment is that there be another partner in a free enterprise operation. We are not suggesting that the government exercise any undue control that they do not exercise over other companies. All we are suggesting is that they receive equity capital equivalent to the amount they put into the company in question, and that they be allowed to act in the same way as any other shareholder would act. I see no legitimate reason for not taking this first step.
The original incentive program has been a failure, as we are all aware. It is a failure in its total concept, not in individual instances. My colleague mentioned the McCain firm. In my opinion this is a case falling almost outside the incentive program, yet they received assistance. As a

December 18, 1970
Division
result of this assistance a new section was added to their large plant, thus allowing production to take place in Canada. In my opinion, that operation was worthwhile and was a success.
However, as far as ending unemployment is concerned, which was what the program was originally designed to do, it has not been of much help. A limited number of jobs have been created. The capitalization of these jobs has been very high in total, and to that extent has not been successful. I am sure that the minister will agree- indeed he has said this many times-that when you make a program too wide your chance of success becomes less and less with each expansion.
For the program to be successful now, we must rapidly increase over the next year the amount of money that is available. I am sure that the people of this country will be willing to assist through taxation, and to that extent will participate in the program. But surely the public can participate not only in the losses but in the profits in cases where profits are made on their investments. If companies under the program were fair with the government they would be willing to pay a dividend on investments for the lifetime of the investments. If they have been unable to get money elsewhere and turn to the federal government for assistance, surely they should regard equity capital from the government as no different from equity capital from other sources.
I am not an expert on financial matters, and I do not know how many of the companies we have already assisted would agree to the proposal now before the House. But in view of the number of companies that we have supported, it seems to me that this proposition is a very minimal requirement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must do so in order to tell him and
the House that his time has expired. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Jean Marchand: that Bill C-205, to amend the Regional
Development Incentives Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Marchand: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we would expect the minister to make a brief statement at this stage of our proceedings. I wonder if he has anything to say on the bill. This is a very important measure and many hon. members in the House have very strong views on the bill and want to say something about it.
We believe that this government has proceeded with what we consider to be unjustified haste. We find it very difficult to understand why the government found it necessary to bring in this bill a few days prior to the scheduled Christmas recess of the House. In so doing, the government made it very difficult for members to study the bill in detail and its very broad implications. More particularly, it made it difficult, if not impossible, for people in this country who are greatly interested in this legislation to examine it and to prepare briefs which in the normal course of events they would present to Parliament during the clause by clause study of the bill in committee.
I think the record should indicate that this measure did not come before the House for debate until December 10,
Regional Development Incentives Act a little over a week ago. It was brought before us in the late hours of Thursday afternoon, December 10, and we spent Friday afternoon debating it. On Monday the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development. We had Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, morning, afternoon and night sittings in committee. We heard witnesses who were called on very short notice from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, from the Rural Development Council of Canada, from the Atlantic Advisory Board and from very qualified and eminent people in the field of economics, especially in regional development.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting him, but there are many conversations taking place in the chamber. It is unfair to the hon. member who has the floor, and it is difficult for the Chair to follow the hon. member.


J. Michael Forrestall: Not to mention how difficult it is for the hon. member.


James Aloysius McGrath: It does not bother me particularly, Mr. Speaker, but it is certainly a reflection of the attitude of hon. members opposite to this very important bill, an attitude of callous indifference and, indeed, of arrogance toward the measure and the broad implications it has for the Atlantic provinces and the regionally disadvantaged areas of Canada. Mr. Speaker, it might be just as well if hon. members opposite did leave the House, because they have not been following this bill. They paid no attention when the bill came in for second reading; there was hardly a corporals' guard here then.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


George Harris Hees: Disgraceful.


James Aloysius McGrath: They paid little or no attention to the bill when it went to the Standing Committee on Regional Development. Indeed, until we were ready to vote on the clause by clause study of the amendments we did not even see the government members of the committee. They did not have the courtesy to attend and hear witnesses in the committee.


George Harris Hees: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: They showed the same indifference to the witnesses who came here, at great inconvenience, to give evidence on this bill as they are showing to the broad implications of this measure. That is reprehensible conduct on the part of the government, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: During the limited time at our disposal we intend to demonstrate exactly what the consequences of this legislation are to the Atlantic provinces, to the Gaspe region of Quebec, to new Quebec to the Labrador portion of Newfoundland, and what it means to northern Ontario.
Messrs:
Stewart
(Okanagan-
Kootenay)
St. Pierre Thomas (Moncton) Thompson (Red Deer) Trudeau Trudel Turner
(London East) Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Walker Watson Weatherhead Whiting Yanakis-137.

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act


J. Michael Forrestall: The members have all gone.


James Aloysius McGrath: In so doing, Mr. Speaker, we shall be registering our grave concern about the course that the government has insisted on following. They have adopted this regional development program with its ramifications, a 15-year program designed to change the structure of areas such as the Atlantic provinces-and you cannot do that overnight-in an attempt to make up for the deficiencies of many years. They have taken this program and used it to meet a short-term, cyclical situation. In so doing they have diluted the bill to the point that it is practically useless to the peripheral areas of this country.
We are fully aware of the seriousness of the situation in Montreal. We are equally aware of the seriousness of the situation throughout the country which is the direct consequence of the government's monetary and fiscal policies in fighting inflation and the deliberate creation of high unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: We know that this is a very serious matter, but we are concerned about the way the government is attempting to cope with it. We are very concerned that they will take the Regional Development Incentives Act, the main thrust of the government's regional development policy, and use it to meet a situation which by its very nature must be short-term. The excessively high unemployment in Montreal and in most of the industrial areas of the country is short-term; it will pass. The problems in the Atlantic provinces are anything but short-term. The problems in northern Ontario, in eastern Quebec or in some parts of the Prairies are anything but short-term and will require a long-term approach.
The minister has gone full circle; he has gone completely against the assurance that he gave in Halifax in October, 1968. I think his assurance is worth repeating for the record. The minister said:
I believe that in our business the sensible, effective action will be found in the middle area between short-run expedients and vague long-run plans. I propose to choose 15 years as the reasonable time horizon for which we should do our planning-
Nobody quarrelled with that statement at the time, because everybody realized the importance of time and that what the minister was trying to do could not be accomplished over-night. You could not do away with the injustices of a hundred years in a short time. The minister continued as follows:
So let me emphasize my first principle. It is that we won't offer short-run expediency or long-run vagueness. We want to have constructive, practical, medium-length plans. We are going to plan for every possible effort for 15 years.
By the amendments to the bill now before the House the minister has changed the whole concept. Professor Brewis, considered to be one of the experts in Canada on regional development, believes that the minister has reoriented the whole policy by using this program to combat cyclical unemployment. Mr. Speaker, we feel
that the broad ramifications of the minister's actions will be felt for a long time in the regionally disadvantaged areas of this country. That is why we are concerned, and that is why the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council is concerned. In a recent "Newsletter" the council stated:
With so much of the industrial heartland of Canada now eligible for grants, the Atlantic region may well ask what chance it has to compete for new industry. When everything is designated, nothing is designated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: In our view, that is the main objection to the course the government is following. They have weakened this bill so far as areas like the Atlantic provinces are concerned to the point where it will be virtually impossible, notwithstanding the added incentives, to attract industry because industry will be unable to resist the pull of Montreal, the metropolis of Canada, located right in the major markets of the country. This act was designed in the first place to do just the opposite. It was originally designed to enable areas such as the Atlantic provinces to compete with industrial areas such as Montreal.
Representatives of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council gave evidence before the committee expressing the same reservations in much broader terms, as outlined in their "Newsletter" of December, 1970. They questioned the effectiveness of the program and the ability of the government to administer it now that the proposed amendments would broaden its scope to the extent where practically half the population of the country is involved in the Regional Development Incentives Act.
We should take a long look at this program, Mr. Speaker. We in this party intend to monitor its operation and the power the minister will have under this measure. We shall watch very carefully to ensure that there is consultation, for example, we will be very anxious to see what happens in Quebec and in Montreal, because we believe that this program will not be effective in meeting the immediate need of Montreal, which is jobs. These jobs are needed now, this winter. We question whether this program will meet that need.
During the course of the committee meetings on clause by clause study of this bill, and as a direct consequence of the evidence produced, we were concerned about the wide, discretionary powers enjoyed by the minister. We tried to put forward an amendment which would ensure that the minister used this wide discretionary power only after full consultation-


Robert Muir: Dictatorial power.


James Aloysius McGrath: -with the provinces and the municipalities. We were shocked to learn during the committee stage of the bill that the Atlantic Provinces Advisory Council, which is charged by statute with advising the minister, had not been consulted by the minister since last January.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Shame.

December 18, 1970


James Aloysius McGrath: We thought that was a shocking revelation. We expected the minister to live up to the statutory obligation placed upon him by the act and consult the Atlantic Provinces Advisory Council about the formulation of the philosophy that brought about this amendment. I am sure that if he had consulted the advisory council they would have advised him against using this particular measure to combat unemployment in Montreal and southeastern Ontario. They would have advised him against this course because of the consequences it would have upon areas such as the Atlantic provinces.
We were equally disturbed after listening to the presentation of the members of the Rural Development Council, for which the minister also has statutory responsibility. They, too, indicated under questioning that the minister had not consulted them. The minister had not bothered to consult them, yet that body contains on its executive committee Professor Brewis, who, on the subject of regional development, is one of the most knowledgeable scholars in Canada.


Robert Muir: The minister only talks to himself.


James Aloysius McGrath: Also, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, that quasi-official body operating in the Atlantic provinces under the patronage of the four Atlantic governments, had not been consulted by this minister. We find it difficult to understand where the minister obtains his advice. Where is he obtaining it? He has yet to tell us. When replying to our direct questions in this regard, he pooh-poohs all our suggestions. He says in so many words, "This is just so much economic theory. You and others have one view; I have my own view." Apparently everybody in Canada is out of step except the minister and his deputy. Unfortunately, in a situation such as this the consequences of that attitude can be serious.
Our amendment would have made it mandatory for the minister to set up an advisory council. We set out in our amendment the composition of that council. We suggested that the council should in part be composed of one nominee from each of the ten provinces, because all ten provinces are now concerned in this program. There are ample precedents for that position. We set out the precedent under the manpower act, a measure for which the minister had some responsibility. We set out the precedent under the Expo act and under the Devco act, for which the minister now has responsibility. There is ample precedent for the Lieutenant Governors in council to make appointments to federal advisory boards.
We stipulated that the board should be comprised of 15 members nominated by the government and a member nominated by each of the ten provinces. This board would have ensured consultation. It was to concern itself with the type of situation now developing in Canada with so much of the country designated. Now provincial governments such as the government of Saskatchewan and perhaps the government of Manitoba, are beginning to designate their own areas. They are doing so because areas in those provinces which have not been included as federally designated areas are at such a disadvantage
Regional Development Incentives Act that the provincial governments have been forced to move in and provide some incentives. Just about the whole country is designated, so what was formerly a regional development policy which gave us some hope has now been translated into a national economic program. The consequences of the government's action, in my view, could be most drastic for areas such as the Atlantic provinces.
The government agreed to accept a watered-down version of our amendment. Imbued with the spirit of Christmas and the spirit of compromise, they agreed that it was necessary to hold consultations. They agreed it was essential that the minister's powers should be at least mellowed by the process of consultation and that this consultation ought to become mandatory rather than discretionary, as the previous amendment set out. They accepted the amendment. There is a new clause in the bill which indicates that the minister shall appoint an advisory council. We shall be watching for the appointment and make-up of the members of the council.


William Arnold Peters: Don't hold your breath.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister heard the evidence given before the committee. He heard the concern expressed by the members of the committee. The minister knows full well that we are concerned because there has not been consultation in many of the complex regions pertaining to the administration of the act. There is provision in the bill making such consultation mandatory. The minister is under an obligation. I feel that inherent in the acceptance of that amendment is the minister's acceptance of the idea that there should be regional representation on the council. I am sure that was the wish of the committee. It was certainly my wish that the council should not be confined to civil servants in Ottawa and to perhaps a few of the minister's personal friends from Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I say that quite sincerely, Mr. Speaker. We want to make sure that somebody from the Atlantic provinces will serve on the council. We want to make sure that there will be on this council somebody who will look after the interests of northern Ontario and other regions.


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister will not listen; he has left the chamber.


James Aloysius McGrath: As a consequence of our amendment being accepted, we feel the bill is now better than it was at the beginning. We ought to examine the record, to see what is the result, at first glance, of any analysis as to the way the program has operated thus far. Sometimes statistics are misleading, yet, on closer examination they usually tell the true story. Let us look at the over-all average of the number of jobs created in the period from, say, September 1 to the end of November, 1970. According to the national average, 42 jobs have been created per approved program.
December 18, 1970

Regional Development Incentives Act
That figure of 42 jobs per approved program does not stand up very well under analysis. If one examines the program closely, one will note that the Atlantic region, with the highest rate of unemployment in the country, had the lowest average number of jobs created per approved application. On the other hand, the province of Ontario, which has enjoyed a traditionally low rate of unemployment, has the highest average for the number of jobs created per approved application. A similar, high average applies to the province of Quebec. This in my view shows a serious weakness in the program. Even if one disregarded the amendment, one could entertain a doubt, to say the least, about whether this program was capable of performing the task that Parliament expected of it, that of creating new jobs.
Let us look at the statistics which apply to other parts of the country. As I said, on a national average 42 jobs have been created per approved application. Let us begin with Newfoundland, which has the highest rate of unemployment in the country and usually has had that unique distinction. For the period September until the end of November, 1970, the number of jobs created per approved application in Newfoundland was three: three jobs were created per approved application. The average figure becomes somewhat higher as one looks at the mainland of Canada. In Prince Edward Island the average number of jobs created per approved job application was 26; in Nova Scotia the average number was 20; in New Brunswick it was 19. Looking at Quebec, one sees that 60 jobs were created per application under this program. In Ontario it increases to 77. It declines as we go further west: in Manitoba it is 14; Saskatchewan, 53; Alberta, 42; British Columbia, 12. British Columbia has a very high rate of unemployment. It has the second highest rate of unemployment in the country.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The number of jobs created per application under this program is the lowest in areas of greatest need, and highest in areas of least need. That does not make sense. This program is not fulfilling its purpose. The purpose of the program was to create jobs in the regionally disadvantaged areas of the country where there is traditionally high unemployment. That is where the program is least effective. We were encouraged by the admission of the deputy minister that the Atlantic Advisory Council has undertaken a study to determine why the program has not been effective in the province of Newfoundland. The new facilities created, as the percentage of the total of applications indicates, show that the Atlantic provinces are well below the national average. Conversely, British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario are above the national average. This indicates that the program has not been effective in creating new jobs in disadvantaged regions. In its present form, the program has had limited effectiveness, especially in the Atlantic provinces.
The amendment before us will do little to correct this serious deficiency. It will provide an added incentive for the Atlantic provinces to offset the incentive provided to Montreal. The amount of the Montreal incentive will be added to that of the Atlantic provinces. The best evidence presented to the committee unequivocally indicated that this would not offset the designation of Montreal; representatives of APEC gave evidence to this effect. Professor Brewis, who was quoted earlier in this debate, gave clear and concise evidence to this effect. Professor Smith the chairman of the Atlantic Advisory Council, was less precise in his evidence before the committee. However, he indicated that before there can be an effective regional development program in this country there must be a strong national economy. If we do not have a strong national economy, the government must forget about regional development, which it is now doing; it must concentrate on uplifting the economy by providing employment in areas of high unemployment in the industrial heartland. This is precisely what the government has done. It now has no regional development policy.
The government has made the regional development program the instrument to combat the cyclical problem in the industrial heartland of Canada. By so doing it has diluted the bill to the point where it is practically useless to areas such as the Atlantic provinces, which is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, because the need is very great. It is anticipated that the rate of unemployment in the Atlantic region this year will exceed 15 per cent. It has already exceeded 10 per cent in Newfoundland, and God knows how high it will go before this winter is over. I point out the statistics to the minister because this is what concerns us about the legislation in its present form. We were not comforted by the evidence of Professor Brewis. This program is all we have and we must try to make the best of it.
We think the government has made a very serious error in judgment by using the regional incentives program as the main weapon to combat the seriously high rate of unemployment in Montreal. We must accept the decision of the government because of our concern about what has happened in Montreal. We have tried to point out the error of the course the government has chosen to follow. We have tried to improve the bill. We hope the bill will alleviate the very serious situation that exists in Montreal.
The minister did not satisfactorily answer the question put to him in committee. Why did he not take advantage of the government organization bill? He could have used the provisions of that bill to deal with the situation. I might add there is a very high rate of unemployment in Vancouver as well. Why not designate Vancouver? The minister could have introduced a "crash" housing program under the National Housing Act to combat unemployment in Montreal. This would have created housing in an area which has a disproportionately high level of substandard housing. It would have achieved two objectives, housing construction which is labour-intensive and it would have provided badly needed jobs and fulfilled a social need. However, the minister did not elect to do this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the House consider sitting until six o'clock, if necessary,

December 18, 1970

adjourning for one hour for dinner and continuing the debate at seven o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I assume that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is also suggesting that we suspend private members' hour.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, our party is agreeable to the proposition that the minister has just stated.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that an order be made in the terms stated?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: I fail to understand why the government did not use some of the existing programs at its disposal to combat the high unemployment in this country, especially in the cities of Montreal and Vancouver. I hope that when the minister speaks in this debate he will dispel our fears about the way this program has been used and the consequences of the government's action in designating the city of Montreal and part of eastern Ontario. This makes it virtually impossible for provinces such as Newfoundland to compete against Montreal in attracting new job-creating industries, which is the purpose of the program. This concerns us about the program. Members of the New Democratic Party referred to this matter in the debate on their amendment at the report stage of the bill.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Analysis of the program indicates that the highest grants produced the fewest jobs. This, surely, is an anomaly which requires explanation. There must be a reason why this should be so. The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) referred to this matter and, indeed, the evidence presented to the committee showed that the highest grants did in fact produce the fewest jobs. I hope the minister will explain this situation and dispel our genuine fears on this point.
This is the only development program we have. Until the government brings in a new one we can only hope it will be effective in achieving its objectives. We certainly hope that the study undertaken by the advisory council in Newfoundland will produce a means whereby the program can be effective in that province, a province where this type of assistance is badly needed. Indeed, we hope the program will be effective throughout the Atlantic provinces and that the additional grants will make it possible for us to compete, notwithstanding the designation of Montreal.
We hope this program will work. We have tried to offer constructive criticism and the speeches which will be made by my hon. friends later in this debate will repeat some of our constructive criticism. I want it clearly understood that constructive criticism should not be misconstrued as opposition to the principle of the bill. We
Regional Development Incentives Act support what the minister is trying to do, but we question the way he is doing it. We sincerely hope that the program will be effective, that it will create jobs; but we hope a reasonable explanation can be given of the anomalous situation whereby the highest grants have produced the fewest jobs, and of the disproportion in the number of jobs created in areas of highest unemployment as compared with those in areas of lower unemployment. Having said this, I reiterate the view of the party to which I belong: We support the intent of the legislation but we question the way the government is going about it.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because in my view and in the view of my hon. friends the bill we are discussing is wrong in its policy. It is, as one of the witnesses before the committee said, an administrative monstrosity and it is a negation of the whole idea of regional development properly understood and properly followed.
There is not a thinking person in Canada who does not realize that regional disparity is a problem with top priority in this country. There is not a person in Canada who is not anxious to get rid of the regional disparities. In income, standard of living, employment opportunities, welfare and every other area of our society, the disadvantaged portions of Canada have suffered for decades. We understood that the present government in particular had undertaken to deal with regional disparity in an effective and planned way. The sad and dangerous thing is that this is not the way in which it has been treated. In fact, from the relatively little information the minister has given Parliament, the program appears to be entirely in a shambles.
Every member of this House and every thinking Canadian is concerned about problems in the province of Quebec which were at least in part responsible for the crisis through which we have been passing in the last couple of months. As I said in another debate, I am one Canadian, one Member of Parliament, who is prepared to support any reasonable and effective contribution to raising the economy of Quebec so that unemployment there may be reduced, this winter if possible or in a year or two at least, and so that the basic unhappiness, resentment and frustration may be partly cured in that province. But I say to the minister that this bill and the regional development plan are entirely the wrong vehicle for dealing with the situation in Quebec. One cannot deal with a problem which, one hopes, is temporary, by means of a program which is supposed to have a long-range commitment and objective.
The reasons for the situation in Quebec and in Montreal in particular are quite different from those underlying the situation in the Atlantic provinces or in certain areas of Manitoba. For example, there is no question of transportation costs in Quebec or Montreal, no question that an infrastructure is lacking as there is in the Atlantic provinces. There is no problem about distance from markets, as there is in the Atlantic provinces.
None of the problems which underlie the lack of economic development in the disadvatanged areas is present

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act in Montreal or Quebec. What is present in Montreal or Quebec is a consequence of an ill-advised and cruel policy by this government in its so-called fight against inflation. An associated problem in Quebec, as I am sure the minister will want to tell me, is that in recent years certain elements in that province, certain policies, certain groups, have by their nature and behaviour held back the normal amount of private capitalist investment going to Quebec. So there are entirely different grounds for the difficulties they have to face.
These proposals cannot deal with the lack of investment in Quebec as a result of a particular situation there. They cannot deal with the result of the government's dismal monetary, fiscal and investment policies as part of a regional development program intended to improve the disadvantaged areas of the country on a long-term basis. The minister cannot do it, and when he attempts to do it, as he does in this bill, he creates an administrative monstrosity and negates the very objectives which he himself set out when he introduced the original act to which this bill proposes amendments.
I understand that one witness before the committee gave evidence that the program now covers five different kinds of designated areas. There are the designated regions under the original scheme; there are the special areas created within these designated areas. Then we have the prescribed areas where certain other conditions apply. Then we get Montreal, Hull and the three eastern counties of Ontario as areas to which it is intended to apply the particular incentives of the bill before us. In addition there is the new situation in the Atlantic area where they will receive the incentives based on the old program of 25 per cent and $5,000 per job, plus the new program of the additional 10 per cent and an additional $2,000 per job. Mr. Speaker, if this is a sensible, logical program, I am the Emperor of Japan. The minister who is, I am sure, as anxious to deal with these matters as I am, ought to have known better than permit his deputy, who scuttled the anti-poverty program a few years ago, to lead him into the administrative jungle in which he now finds himself.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
There are ways to deal with the special situation of Montreal and Quebec. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has suggested setting up a capital development fund of $150 million, the largest part of which is to go to the province of Quebec. We said at the time that $150 million in terms of the needs of the Canadian economy is both senseless and picayune; that what is required is $750 million or $1 billion if we are to give any real incentive to the improvement of the general economy, and particularly that of the province of Quebec. This would be the proper vehicle for dealing with the situation in Montreal and Quebec, in Cornwall and the three counties of eastern Ontario with which the bill is intended to deal. These areas do not have the problems of the Atlantic area; they must be dealt with in terms of an immediate, planned, large investment program that is not part of the regional development program because these areas are not part of it. You cannot artificially introduce
something that does not belong to the regional development program.
In the Atlantic provinces there is the problem of infrastructure. There are problems of transportation and of private corporations that do not see a profit in the Atlantic economy. The policies that the minister and his department have followed show no element of planning, of direction, and constitute ad hoc planning of the worst possible kind. The minister jumps from one thing to another without reference to area. One of the witnesses from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, I think Mr. Flemming whose evidence I quickly read today, told the committee that what they have had in the Atlantic provinces is merely an increase in existing industry. He said that almost nothing new had been introduced. I will take his word for that since my observations during my visits there have shown me the same thing. From what I know about the grants that have been made to small businesses, there has not been any planning for industrial or economic development, as Mr. Flemming on behalf of APEC told the committee. It is simply a case of giving money to any business that looks O.K.
We also have a terrific time lag here. This should be kept in mind when we talk of Montreal, Quebec and Cornwall. According to the information the members of the House had toward the end of October, there were an estimated 18,362 jobs that it was intended to create with a commitment of $102,579,442. However, as of this week only $3.4 million had actually been paid out. I do not blame the department for this, though I suspect that part of the reason for it has been a great deal of bureaucratic movement in reverse, a sort of two steps backwards, one step forward process which frequently happens in this sort of case. But even if that is not the case, what this situation does underline is the immense time lag between the commitment of some expenditure on businesses that have come into the plan and the actual paying out of the money.
According to Mr. Flemming-I did not read in the evidence a denial on behalf of the minister or his deputy-it takes 16 weeks from the time of the making of an application to receiving an offer from the department. Then there is a further time lapse in order to build a plant if a new plant is required, to get machinery if new machinery is required, to import equipment if new equipment is required or to set up a new work force if a new work force is required. These things cannot be done overnight; they take months, sometimes years. As I have said, to attempt to deal with the situation in Montreal and Cornwall by the regional development route is to heap illogic upon illogic.
Having tried to study and understand the whole policy, my major objection to it is that there is no plan regarding regional development. I have seen no evidence that the department and its advisers have sat down and asked themselves what the Atlantic region needs over the next 15 years to raise its economy to a level that approximates the national average. I am not talking about merely expanding some little industry already in the Atlantic provinces; we may be required to introduce completely

December 18, 1970

new industry and new concepts into the area. This is the way the problem is tackled in other countries and it is done in this way because there is not the same stupid, reactionary, doctrinaire commitment to deal only with private enterprise and private corporations.
It is true that there is no country in the world, at least no country I know of, that does not have a problem in regard to regional disparity. To take the Communist countries first, Russia has such a problem, as do China, Poland and Yugoslavia. The same is true in Italy and France, and to a lesser extent in West Germany and Britain. Even in the Scandinavian countries, where populations are small, there are disadvantaged areas vis-a-vis the national average in those countries. In other words, this is a world problem, not one that Canada alone faces.
I admit that this problem is not soluble overnight, in a year or even in five years. But we have to make a start on solving the problem. The way in which other countries have started to solve it is not by waving carrots in front of the noses of private enterprisers and echoing the stupidities which private enterprisers have echoed for decades. We must solve this problem by doing what has been done in Italy, France, West Germany, Britain and other democratic countries, namely, by having a plan for the location of industry, a plan that is related to the indigenous resources and skills of the area, a plan that takes account of the total economy and the regional economy and relates the one to the other. Such a plan has a life for a period of years, instead of jumping from one alleged crisis to another.
It is this utter lack of planning in the minister's department that has, in my opinion, made his department a shambles. This is why this legislation is bound to fail, though I know the minister will not agree and neither, perhaps, will the official opposition agree. On any proposal for planning and public investment, my party remains alone. I am not unhappy about that. I would rather stand alone with the conviction that I am right than merely follow the herd, and I do not apologize for that. As I say, the action the government is now taking is bound to fail.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Ever since 1963 we have been promised a Canada Development Corporation. Unless I am mistaken, every Throne Speech since a Liberal government has been in power, whether under right hon. Mr. Pearson or under its present leader, has promised a Canada Development Corporation. We still do not have it. The way to deal with the Montreal and Cornwall situations, and the way to deal with many aspects of the disadvantages the Atlantic region suffers, is to have a Canada Development Corporation simultaneously with a regional development plan, so you would have a pool of investment under the control of the government which could be used to raise the economies of all parts of Canada in a planned and sensible way. That is what we should have.
Because we do not have a Canada Development Corporation and because the minister does not have a pool of investment to which he can turn, except the funds the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury
Regional Development Incentives Act Board (Mr. Drury) make available from time to time, he does this kind of senseless thing. I say to him that this bill is senseless. Hon. Members who spoke earlier today were right when they said this bill completely negates the regional development plan. The people of the Atlantic provinces are right to fear that as the result of this proposal they will get even less than they have received until now. The people of Quebec are right in feeling that their problems are being dealt with in a useless, flippant and almost silly way, and that they cannot look forward to a real solution to the problems they have faced and which Canada has had to face.
Of course I know that this bill will pass because the government has decided on it. However, I say, first, that it is a bad bill in itself and, second, that it destroys the concept of regional expansion. Third, it is another example of complete lack of economic and social planning. Finally, it will be of no use whatsoever in solving the unemployment situation in Montreal this winter, and probably of little use even a year or two years from now.
When we look at what the minister has accomplished a year or two from now, we will find that this minister, who has a big heart and a desire to do this job well, will be a failure because of the way he is proceeding and because the work is unplanned. He will be a failure because of the mixed-up monstrosity he has created with this bill.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are debating such a vitally important subject under the pressure of a Christmas recess deadline. There is nothing more important in the country at this time than the necessity of dealing with a problem which has been with Canada since confederation-the problem of regional economic disparity. This was one of the major topics discussed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the 1968 election campaign. It is one of the recurring issues which crop up at federal-provincial conferences on constitutional matters and also in respect of other areas of government. Because the government is taking this precipitous action to deal with a fundamental problem on a crisis basis, we find ourselves involved in a debate that can only aggravate the tensions which exist in Canada as a result of regional economic disparity.
Other members who have spoken during the debate have pointed out the government's failure to deal with this problem on a long-term basis. This has been the peculiar approach of the present government to economic matters. Just two or three weeks ago we had a budget brought down on the basis of a crisis precipitated by the troubles the province of Quebec has experienced in the past few weeks. That budget has since been described by various authorities on taxation matters as a non-budget.
To indicate that I am not prejudiced about this matter, I should like to quote a new Liberal voice from western Canada. I refer to the new Liberal provincial leader in Manitoba, Mr. Asper, who became well known for his understanding of tax problems as a result of his widely read book "The Benson Iceberg". His response to the

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act non-budget was in the following terms, and I quote from the Brandon Sun of December 4, 1970:
"It's a budget designed to bolster the eastern economy while it should have created job opportunities on the Prairies so eastern unemployment could have drifted here", Mr. Asper said in an interview.
I should like to speak during the few minutes at my disposal this afternoon about the western approach to government initiative in the area of regional economic development and the whole program of diversification and dispersal of industry in order to bring about a more rational distribution of population, financial resources and political power. These problems have been discussed in Parliament since the end of World War II with increasing intensity. As a result, the government has moved gradually and cautiously into this area of responsibility.
I remember that one of the first private members' resolutions sponsored related to the necessity of government action to ensure diversification and dispersal of industry throughout the nation. There was considerable progress made in the latter part of the 1950s and the early part of the 1960s when special plans and programs were designed to deal with problems facing the Mari-times. We have heard several spokesmen from the Mari-times who have presented their case in typically eloquent terms. The program for northern development also came to the fore. There were also the special programs to deal with the peculiar problems of western Canada and the designated area program designed to deal with pockets of unemployment in urban centres. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was designed to offset the rural-urban drift which was reaching chronic proportions.
Unfortunately, during the latter part of the 1960s the government's policies both in respect of urban growth and the agricultural industry have tended to aggravate rather than solve this problem of population drift from rural communities to urban centres. This has resulted in a crisis atmosphere which is becoming all too obvious in our huge metropolis areas. Unfortunately, also, the legislation before us today is designed to deal with one of these crisis areas on an ad hoc basis. As has already been stated by spokesmen on this side of the House this approach will destroy the fundamental purpose of the DREE program.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
If the process of continuing planning which has been gradually established over the past 15 years is interrupted by the use of legislation to deal with an immediate crisis situation, the program unfortunately will become so badly distorted that it will, as I have already indicated, aggravate regional disparity and create a growing tension and dissension in the whole area of national unity, rather than relieve the problem. 1 have already quoted one western Liberal authority in this regard. Perhaps the most apt description of what is taking place in respect of the government's initiative is that the program of regional disparity is being changed to one of political disparity which in the old days was known as pork-barrel politics.
Again, as an indication that this is not the prejudiced pronouncement of a member of the opposition, I should like to go back to the Liberal authority to whom I have already referred. I quote from the Brandon Sun of November 26 this year as follows:
The leader of the provincial Liberal Party told the Brandon Liberal Women's Association that Manitoba, in fact the entire Prairie region, is a victim of an "anarchistic and outdated" governmental structure-
Further on the article reads:
In a hard-hitting 70-mlnute address, Mr. Asper said he intends to travel throughout Canada "to tell how confederation has denied us equality of economic opportunity and reduced us to the status of second-class citizens."
Then he deals directly with the problem which we are discussing this afternoon.
About 33 per cent of Manitoba's one million people live below the poverty line.
"This 33 per cent figure speaks a great deal," Mr. Asper said. "It is higher than the 27 per cent figure for Quebec and everyone bleeds for Quebec. I also bleed for Quebec but I bleed more for Manitoba."
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed by the leader of the Manitoba Liberal party. Coming closer to home, we have another Liberal spokesman from the west, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson), who comes back to the theme repeatedly. He has expressed continuing concern and I hope similar sentiments will be expressed during the course of this debate. A year before Mr. Asper expressed this concern, the minister is quoted in the Winnipeg Tribune of November 17, 1969, as follows:
In a strong speech to delegates attending the annual meeting of the Manitoba Liberal Party Sunday, Mr. Richardson warned that growth of eastern Canada at the expense of the western region must be brought to an end.
Further on we find these words:
He made it abundantly clear western Canada will not stand by idly while government controls are centralized further in Ottawa and economic powers are allowed to concentrate in Toronto and Montreal.
This is the old formula of dividing and conquering, because strong words like that from spokesmen of the Liberal Party in Western Canada of course receive the plaudits of the public. Words of that kind also have a very divisive effect upon the Canadian body politic. Parliament is the place those sentiments should be expressed. I trust that some western Liberal spokesmen who sit in this House of Commons and represent western constituencies will seize the opportunity provided by this debate to express those sentiments when they will have the most effect, while the minister is in the House listening to the voice of western Canada as expressed by Members of Parliament. Unfortunately, the minister cannot hear such expressions out on the hustings where their whole intent is to divide and conquer.
Worse than the failure to plan on a continuous basis to deal with the fundamental problem of regional disparity, we find that some of the recent program initiatives of the government have been working at cross-purposes. I should like to refer to one or two obvious examples of

December 18, 1970

this. The problem of transportation in western Canada is always with us. We have the continuous downgrading of railway transportation in the west. What is more to the point, in this day and age when air transporation is becoming increasingly important we find the government is allowing its regional air policies to be downgraded by gradual erosion through decisions made by the Canadian Transport Commission.
Back in the middle fifties in the province of Manitoba we had adequate class A air service from Winnipeg right through to Calgary. Air Canada provided that service initially. Then Air Canada relinquished the responsibility to a regional air carrier, TransAir, along with a subsidy. In the past two years that subsidy has been removed. In a day when air transportation is of the utmost importance if we are to have any hope of encouraging industrial development, we find that the regional service at the western lateral between Winnipeg, Brandon, Yorkton, Regina and Calgary has been completely discontinued.
Last year, for example, the city of Brandon lost its class A service through to Winnipeg and Regina. This was done quite surreptitiously. In the last few weeks TransAir has even discontinued its daily service between Winnipeg and Regina. We are moving back to the horse-and-buggy days, instead of moving forward in the space age or air age when if we are to have any hope of benefiting from the government's regional development program we must ensure to prospective industry that there is adequate, first-class air service.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
This is happening in face of the expenditure of millions of dollars for new airfields both in the Toronto and the Montreal regions. I can understand why Liberal spokesmen in the west are criticizing so vehemently the Liberal administration in Ottawa for their neglect in this respect. I only wish they would use the forum provided by Parliament, instead of shouting from the rooftops, on the hustings and then remaining deathly still and quiet here in the high court of public opinion.
I could also mention, of course, the confusion that was caused by the downgrading of the postal service within the past year when several communities disappeared completely in various parts of western Canada because of the arbitrary closure of rural post offices. Fortunately, we have a man in charge of that department now who understands the essence of regional development and the basis of rural problems and he has reversed that decision; but untold damage was done because of the government's failure to appreciate the real issues of regional development in western Canada.
As a result of this policy, or lack of policy, and of the planning, or lack of planning, on the part of the government we have this continued concentration in huge urban metropolises which creates problems of pollution beyond man's capacity to cope with, where the rate of crime soars, where urban guerrilla activities become a matter of serious concern and where, as is happening in some of the large centres in the United States, the problems of urban organization become almost unmanageable. This
Regional Development Incentives Act government's answer is to add insult to injury and to indroduce ad hoc programs that will only aggravate rather than resolve and assist in remedying some of these problems.
In conclusion I would like to give a specific example of the government's failure to give equal emphasis to economic problems and crises in various parts of Canada. I refer to its failure to deal with the phasing-out of military bases in western Canada in a manner designed to have the least possible economic impact on the communities concerned. In the province of Manitoba we have lost two military bases within the past several months. Two thousand seven hundred jobs were represented by those two air bases. This is more than twice the number of job opportunities created under the program of the depart-merit in the last year.
So we are going backward rather than forward. It does not have to be so, because there has been ample warning that in the government's reassessment of the military requirements for Canada there has been four or five years warning. The base at Portage has been kept open even though there is a housing shortage that will require the expenditure of substantial sums of money in order to supply adequate housing for the increased personnel there. During the recent crisis in Quebec when military personnel had to be flown from Shilo to Montreal on an emergency basis, the Rivers airport, which is one of the best airports in Canada, had to be reopened temporarily because the Portage base was not adequate to meet this requirement. Millions of dollars have been spent at the Rivers air base in the last few years to repair the runways because it was felt that it would be one of the basic air force training units in Canada for a long time to come.
However, suddenly it is phased out of existence, and since the announcement was made in September there has been no concrete indication by the government that there are alternative programs to use the excellent facilities at this base. Representations have been made by the local communities involved who have come to Ottawa at their own expense on several occasions. Representatives of the provincial government of Manitoba have made pilgrimages to Ottawa. We have the promise that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) himself will be coming to Manitoba early in the new year when he will announce plans and policies to deal with the economic crisis that has been created by this situation.
I hope that in the interests of an adequate, fair and non-discriminatory approach to problems of regional disparity the minister will be as generous to western Canada as he is to the areas that are being specially designated under the legislation before us. If Ottawa does not operate on a fair basis, the protests that I have read briefly this afternoon by the Liberal minister from Manitoba, the speeches that he makes regularly on the hustings rather than in the House of Commons, will rise to an unhappy chorus that can only have a serious impact on national unity in Canada. Then there are the statements of the new Liberal leader, Mr. Asper, which I quoted earlier. People will begin to take him seriously if

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
he goes on this crusade, as he says he will, across Canada, and again we will have increasing problems of national unity which are created by economic difficulties rather than cultural or symbolic matters.
As previous speakers have said, there is nothing much we the opposition can do about this legislation. The government is prepared to push it through regardless of any protests. It has been brought in during the dying hours of this part of the session of Parliament. The government has its disciplined majority. In the interests of a united Canada from sea to sea, I urge the government and the minister, as he contemplates the problems in western Canada, to act with the generosity and expedition that he is employing in the matter under discussion today.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the legislation before us for third reading, I assure the House that it is my intention to speak very briefly and to deal with only one or two points in connection with the over-all incentives program. Just over a year ago we passed the Regional Development Incentives Act. This act was to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in designated regions which require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment. Bill C-205 which we are discussing seeks to amend that legislation. There are several areas where I feel other changes should be made and I welcome this opportunity to once again draw them to the attention of the minister and the House.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The specific objectives of the Regional Development Incentives Act were to foster industrial development in slow-growth areas. A number of these designated areas have been set up throughout Canada. My constituency of Kootenay West is located in one of them. To date, however, relatively few new jobs have been created as a result of this designation. There is an indication, however, that the several industrial committees which have been set up to promote and encourage the establishment of industries within their respective districts will obtain results. There is no doubt that it takes a long tline ^ to contact interested industrial groups and have them visit the area to assess the possibilities. While the process may be slow, once industry is established it helps to provide increased job opportunities which are so essential to the growth of an area.
The whole Kootenay West region has tremendous potential in the area of tourism. However, we find that incentives to develop the tourist industry were not included in the original legislation and are not proposed in this bill. I should like to make the point that once an area has been designated, adequate surveys for economic development should be made to ascertain how it can best be assisted. In the case of Kootenay West we find that the tourist industry is high on the list. Proper planning should indicate that tourism be encouraged through incentive grants.
[Mr. Dlnsdale.l
I point out to the minister that if an area is logically suited to a specific type of development, this development should receive further encouragement. It would be a tragedy to encourage the development of certain types of industry in a prime tourist area. Such development could only ruin the potential for tourism. That is why I would urge the minister to apply financial incentives to the development of the tourist industry. If this is done, there will be a tremendous increase in industrial activity in the area as a whole and in some parts of my constituency. Such encouragement would also prevent choice areas being affected by unwise economic development of a type which might seriously injure the potential of the tourist industry. I think the minister should again look at this side of the picture of industrial development.
It seems to me that jobs are jobs. I can understand the need for secondary industry and I endorse the establishment of it in many of the slow-growth areas. But if you have a designated area, a large portion of which can best use incentive grants to develop tourism, that is what the government should be encouraging. I believe this is spending wisely, Mr. Speaker. We desperately need jobs in my part of British Columbia and I think we would have a real boom there if incentive grants were directed toward the development of tourism. That is why I am requesting the government to add it to the over-all picture and make the program apply from the east to the west of Canada.
In speaking about the tourist industry I would point out to the government that this is something we can sell time and time again. It is not depleted as is mining or logging. Once developed, it is there for all time and can be sold to people who like to visit these areas. As long as we do not destroy our environment through foolish development, it will endure. If we want to stop unwise economic development in some areas we must clearly indicate now that tourism is the key industry to be covered. Then we can start long-range planning for any area suited to it.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not spend any more time on this bill because I know other speakers want to deal with points which have not been raised. In closing I would say I am alarmed at the hodgepodge that has taken place in our regional development planning. It is just patch upon patch. The government does not seem to have a clear idea of its direction. As several speakers have already pointed out, there are five different types of designated area in Canada. This cannot lead to adequate or proper planning. I agree it would have been better for the nation to have had a Canada development plan under an act, with adequate funds for development purposes. Then perhaps we could have proceeded along these lines in an orderly manner. I urge the minister to seriously consider the tremendous impact which the inclusion of tourism incentives in the Regional Development Incentives Act would have on all parts of Canada. I suggest that before the summer recess in June, the minister should bring in an amendment to make this part of the over-all plan.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, some nights ago I expressed my views on this measure. I
December 18, 1970

wish that in the intervening period, brief as it has been, something had been said which would have caused me to look with more favour upon the legislation than I did at an earlier stage when we were seized with it. Having given the most careful attention to what went on in various areas of consideration in committee and in the House, I find that nothing has happened which fundamentally changes my point of view. I concur heartily with my colleagues who have expressed regret that a piece of legislation so fundamental in import and so broad in scope should be tagged on at the end of a session with such a brief period for deliberation and debate. I think this is regrettable.
Much has been said of the disturbing hodgepodge in the realms of bureaucracy and the lack of clarity of administrative goals. People have quoted the criticisms by spokesmen for the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. I believe that the term "administrative monstrosity" used by a spokesman of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has been used by a good many members. After careful reflection and after scrutinizing the measure, I believe that "administrative monstrosity" is not a hyperbolic expression.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Regional Development Incentives Act
^[DOT] Coates; I wonder if the hon. gentleman is aware that the gentleman he has just mentioned, who is the executive director of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council at the present time, was the Liberal candidate who opposed me in the last general election? What he said indicates that, from that point of view, both Liberals and Conservatives share the same attitudes in the Atlantic provinces.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The same could be said about Manitoba too.	'


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am aware of what the hon. member has just said. I appreciate my colleague's reminding me that Mr. Flemming ran against him in the last election. Had he not been opposed by such a tough opponent as the present hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), he might have been in the House to say what he said so well before the committee the other day. I think there is very little disagreement in Atlantic Canada on the impact and import of this legislation. I think it is right that my colleague should have pointed this out by way of a carefully asked parliamentary question.
This legislation indicates, of course, that the nation's economy is depressed. What is depressing is that we are coming to a stage at which, it must be admitted, programs designed to ameliorate or diminish the effects of regional disparity, or possibly eradicate them, have not been successful and in large part are being abandoned. Without question, the program has been diluted by the extension of the areas. Even without this dilution and diminution affecting the concentration of the regions concerned, we should have required a good deal of luck and a great, fortuitous knitting together of circumstances and events for the program to have proven efficacious. There has been clear and painful testimony about this in recent days from members of the House and from people in the regions most concerned, especially from the Atlantic region which probably, because of its history, knows more about the ills and iniquities of disparity than any other region.
We have already been told that Harry Flemming, executive director of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, testified the other day that the expansion program was in a state of chaos. He declared that the amended legislation would not work. He pointed out some of the sobering and chilling aspects of the whole program. Some have been mentioned by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and other hon. members. I will not repeat them. Mr. Flemming said:
If the administration of the present program is in such a state of chaos, how is DREE going to administer a broader program including Montreal and southeastern Ontario?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Certainly.
23568-69}


An hon. Member:: They must have planned that one for
hours.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: As an indication of what has happened to the program, let me say that now the name no longer means anything. If the whole country is involved you can hardly call the program a regional matter. If we' are told that conditions all across the country are bad how can we talk about disparities? In my search for meanings, I consulted the two best dictionaries I possess I wondered if the expression "DREE" had some meaning which would illustrate our difficulties. According to the Oxford Dictionary, page 658, dree means, among other things:
To endure, undergo, suffer, bear grievous, or painful).
(something burdensome.
I quote another definition, accepted by Mari timers:
This one will readily be
-to endure one's fate, suffer or submit to one's destiny.
It is; this long range submission to our destiny that has disturbed the Atlantic provinces for lo these many years for something like over a century.
Much has been said about what has been done for one region and what has been done for another. You know Mr. Speaker, I have been thinking of a simple expression' Perhaps we are trying to rob Peter to pay Paul We never succeed in paying Paul. I am, therefore, very doubtful about any benefits that would accrue to the new areas under this legislation. Perhaps we might adopt a more sanguine outlook if we could entertain the conviction that the new areas would benefit in terms of economic uplift and the provision of jobs, and if they were to be aided and assisted by the program. This conviction, I fear, I do not hold. As my friend, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) pointed out, many of this

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
country's difficulties are becoming worse and troubling the regions of the west, the regions of Atlantic Canada, and so on. He was quite right in pointing out some of these.
I have always maintained that it was totally unrealistic for the government to give to only one department the obligation of fighting the disadvantages which have fallen upon certain regions as a result of national policies. In the past, one department has had the responsibility for such programs, whereas all departments of government should be totally and eternally aware of our difficulties. In their administration and performance, they ought to take stock of all such situations. In the Atlantic region and in other parts of the country, governments have gone through the process of laying off people and cutting down their operations as a result of the nationally imposed austerity freeze. The people have walked out of their jobs and hoped they might find jobs in another department of government, a department such as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Yet very few jobs have been found, except for those who are themselves planners and bureaucrats.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris has talked about postal matters. There has been a diminution in the economies of many communities and I agree with what he said about the changed approaches in those communities. One of the chronic difficulties of those areas at the extremities of the country has been in the field of transportation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is quite right.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Not a month, not a week goes by without someone crying out from a rural area, from the Atlantic area or from a western area, about some further cutbacks in transportation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has talked about selling Atlantic area goods to the northeastern United States. That is fine. We were doing that very well before confederation. We were prospering and so were they. Now, we want assistance to bring our goods to those potential markets; and concentration on improving our transportation facilities would be very much in order. Yet, instead of that, we find that the situation day after day becomes worse.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Our latest difficulty arises from the freight rate increase, and reference was made to that during the question period. There has been no other opportunity for members from Atlantic Canada to refer to it. I wish to quote from an article by Lyndon Watkins in today's Globe and Mail:
Maritime potato producers are digging in for a determined battle with the railways over freight rate increases and sharply increased auxiliary charges which they say will add 70 per cent to transportation costs on export shipments through St. John
and Halifax.
What is being done about this by the involved planning of the minister's department? An injustice is being inflicted upon the potato producers of two provinces of Atlantic Canada, the chief contributors toward agricultural income. It will be a serious blow to many people,
not only those actively involved in agriculture, but those other citizens depending upon the success of those people. There should be a frontal attack by all departments of government on those aspects of national policy which make one region or another uniquely at a disadvantage because of these national policies. With all the powers that the minister has, even if he were as good as some people might think, he and his department could not cope with these problems. The whole government must be seized of them.
I do not enjoy being looked upon as a special pleader. We in the Maritimes grow a little weary about having to bring forward eternally for national consideration the problems with which we have to cope. However, for over a century we have had disadvantages against which we have had to struggle. Many of these have come as a result of uniting with the rest of the country. I think it can be said, without special pleading and without chauvinism, that we have never had our fair share of the fruits of federation. A very clear example can be seen by looking at the map of Canada in 1867. There was a union of four provinces at that time. They were not large provinces. A generation or so later two of the provinces had grown into vast structures. They extended northward and in one case westward. They became geographical giants and giants in other ways.
Other provinces were added. They were at first small and they grew. The province of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) was once the postage stamp province. The territories around these provinces were developed by united and confederated Canada. As the years went by, not one acre was added to the area of the two oldest provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This also applies to Prince Edward Island. As new frontiers were opened, the three provinces by the sea were shut out of that particular kind of expansion. Therefore, we do not hesitate to say that we have rights.
We have reason to suggest to the federal government that the inequities which national policies have inflicted upon our region should be corrected by the only agency capable of doing this, the federal government. What we have before us is at best a palliative, at worst a weakening of the existing structure. Perhaps it is a well inten-tioned effort to improve the situation in the province of Quebec which, in economic terms, has apparently become far worse than many hon. members from that area expected. If they did expect it, they did not show the wisdom of their expectations. No one would hesitate to suggest that what injures Quebec also injures and affects all of us. I do not think the minister did his province, Parliament or himself a service by trying to create a division between Quebec and other parts of the country.
His suggestion that some of us, as we examined this legislation and spoke thereon, were anti-Quebec was most unworthy. It was a crude, ill-mannered interjection. There were times when the minister displayed some of the attributes of the once great minister in this House, Mr. C. D. Howe. While he may at times have his black disposition, I fear that he does not have his grey matter. It would not be well for him to emulate that man,

December 18, 1970

because I do not think he can do it. Even with all the powers of the minister, I still have reservations about the efficacy of this bill. I hope it will be more helpful than I think it will be. I wish the government had shown more perception and imagination when faced with great problems in Montreal and done something better than tinkering with the regional expansion legislation which, in an untinkered state, had not been very successful.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I participate in this debate with mixed feelings. I realize that this part of the session is limping to a close. There is a sort of curfew on how long members can participate in the debate on Bill C-205. This is one of the more important pieces of legislation to be dealt with by this Parliament. I do not say that because I represent an Atlantic area constituency, but because I am a federal legislator in the House of Commons. I recognize the fact that there is a curtailment of time and that members opposite, especially in the ministry, deserve a break. I think all members deserve a break, not because of what we have produced in this House, but because of the stress and strain that members of the cabinet had to sustain and suffer this fall. Hopefully, with this Christmas recess, we will be able to regenerate and return to do constructive work and perhaps avoid the type of bill that we are debating today.
One of my misgivings about this bill is its title, "An Act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act". Some of what I say will obviously be repetitive. Some members opposite may think it is all repetitive. However,
I wish to add a couple of thoughts to the pot, not in the hope that there will be a great conversion of the minister on the road to Damascus or that there will be any change in the substance of the bill, but when the next session of this Parliament commences and the problems still exist throughout Canada on a regional basis perhaps we will appreciate the folly of our ways in approving Bill C-205.
I protest Bill C-205, not because of a parochial or provincial interest, but because the very title of the bill is a misnomer. While this is a bill to amend the The Regional Development Incentives Act, as a result of the regulations the minister is going to pronounce following the passage of this bill, it will no longer be a regional act. It will, in fact, be a national development incentives act. Every member of the House should be aware of what is taking place, what is going on. I must say I listened with a great deal of respect to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who led the Conservative group in the deliberations before the committee and who contributed in a most constructive way this afternoon. My hon. friend from Hillsborough talked more in a historical perspective.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I shall not belabour the obvious problems of the Atlantic area or the problems of the Gaspe area or the problems of certain parts of the Prairies. Before these amendments came before Your Honour, these were the regions of economic disparity which could look to a federal gov-
Regional Development Incentives Act ernment for unique assistance in a most enlightened way. I shall not belabour the past in that way but I have been somewhat surprised by the vacuum of silence on the part of members from other parts of Canada who have made no contribution either plus or minus on Bill C-205. If I were a government member from Ontario, and there are a good many of them, I would be more concerned about the implications of this bill than I am as a member from the Atlantic area.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that except for some members on the opposite side who were on the committee dealing with regional economic expansion, not too many appreciate what is being done by this bill. Industry in, say, Ontario, will now be competing with industry across the boundary in Quebec. On one side of the boundary there will be a 25 per cent incentive, which was the amount under the old act, because of regional disparity, but as a result of this amendment there will be either a 25 per cent or a 10 per cent incentive depending on whether the industry is in Montreal or St. Jean or nearer the Ontario border. The effect of this three-tier incentive program which the minister has proposed to stimulate activity in some areas which have experienced unfortunate difficulties in the last few months and in the last few years, combined with the 25 per cent grant which presently exists under the old bill and the 10 per cent which the Atlantic area is to get making a 35 per cent set-up, will be to create potentially serious problems for any organized industrial expansion in any part of the country.
The only explanation which comes to my mind for the lack of contributions from members from all parts of the country, not just from an area of economic disparity be it the Atlantic area or not, is the restriction on time. For the purpose of the record, because this has been referred to in a general way, I want to outline the unconscionable haste with which this bill has moved from first reading on December 4, which as Your Honour knows is just a formality, see to the second reading debate on December 10. Then, for the first time, between 3.40 p.m. and 5 o'clock, it was debated for an hour and twenty minutes and between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. for two hours. On Friday, December 11, this bill was debated for another hour and twenty minutes in the morning and another two hours in the afternoon. On Monday, December 14, it was finally referred to a committee after being debated for a grand total of one hour. In total, up to today, seven hours and forty minutes have been spent on a bill which I suggest to all members of this House affects all regions of this country.
While the catalyst, with the utmost sincerity of the minister and his advisers, was special problems and unique situations in Quebec and Montreal, the full ramifications of this bill affect this nation from coast to coast. I suggest what I have outlined is a sad commentary on the House of Commons. Many people outside this august chamber wonder how relevant we are, and how realistic our debates are, when a bill which is fundamental to the industrial and economic fabric of this land has been considered for only seven hours and forty

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act minutes in this House. Of course, we all know it was discussed in committee, and it did receive three or four days of rather strenuous sessions of committee debate. But committee debate does not as yet, with the facilities that we have to propagate propaganda or policies, call it what you will, generate public interest. It might be just coincidence.
The minister states there is necessity for almost a brevity of debate because these proposals are supposed to be implemented on January 1. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, if the situation is as fundamental and serious as the minister told us in committee, then it is certainly a sad reflection on the planning of his department that this bill comes to this House in the dying days of this part of the session after receiving a grand total of seven hours and forty minutes of House debate. How does the country even appreciate it, as other members have said? How can people begin to study the implications? Certainly, until we got into committee I suggest that at least half the members of the Regional Economic Expansion committee did not really fully appreciate what was going on.
I want to deal, Mr. Speaker, with this bill in a relatively short period of time, but I shall not apoligize for taking my full time for the reasons I have just stated. I shall express my views on the basis of the principle of the bill as I see it, and the problems of the bill and I shall be covering many of the areas that have been very well documented by other members so I shall be brief. And I shall make a prophecy about this bill which, I suggest, whether it is right or wrong, should be at least stated so that we do not live in the unreal world in which we so often find ourselves in the House of Commons because we are afraid to say what we all talk about behind the curtains. We are not supposed to say these things on the floor of the House because they might offend sensibilities or be misinterpreted. As far as I am concerned, I am getting so fed up about the danger of being misinterpreted that I think arteriosclerosis is inhibiting the positive, frank point of view often expressed by all members of the House. And I am as much at fault in that respect as anybody.
But coming to the principle of the bill, there is no doubt, and I want to make this most clear, we all support the objective and hope it is achieved. The minister, perhaps in the emotion and excitement of second reading when he was a little impatient, made some most unfortunate suggestions about my hon. friend from Hillsborough who has contributed, as far as I am concerned, in a most positive way to a true one Canada regardless of how we all define it. This was most unfortunate. However, as I said in the beginning, I understand and sympathize with the minister, especially since he has been under abnormal stress and strain. Let us hope we get out of this place so that the minister, who is a pretty fine fellow although politically I am pretty apprehensive of him, will not, perhaps, say things that he will regret. But as far as the principle of this bill is concerned, if the principle is to help the needy and substitute some hope for hunger or to employ the unemployed or to give a lift to a lagging economy, obviously there is not a member of the House who is not all hosannahs for the bill.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
If the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) wants to contribute anything to this debate besides the seat of his pants, then I would be only too happy to hear what he has to say. But I will not be interrupted by a man who usually speaks when his brain is in his seat.


Mr. Mahoney:: Would the hon. member permit a question either now or at the conclusion of his remarks?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will permit one now.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The hon. member made a great deal about the debate being short. Would he care to indicate whether he was in his seat when unanimous consent to this procedure was given?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not quite follow the hon. member's question.


Mr. Lundrigan:: What do you mean by that nonsense?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I think the question is irrelevant, Mr. Speaker.


John Howard Lundrigan: It is also pretty small.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In any event, it has nothing to do with the merits of the bill. Since the hon. member for Calgary South wants to entertain some idiocies, let me transgress for a moment and get just a little bit political. Let me point out the paradox in which this chamber now finds itself. The government ran an election campaign on two mains planks, one of which was elimination of regional economic disparity. In this bill the government are eliminating regional economic disparity and substituting national economic development. National economic development may be fine and we are all for it, but they must remember that there are precise and chronic problems in regions that do not enjoy the full economic growth that some areas enjoy.
In the last election campaign, the government ran under the banner of one Canada and the elimination of regional economic disparity. The hon. member for Calgary South-and when he runs again in the next election campaign we will see whether he will still have his seat in this House-is supporting a government that no longer preaches the platitude of one Canada but is now dividing Canada, in effect, into have and have-not areas.
By expanding the designated areas, the bill is now including half of Canada within such areas, the other half remaining outside. This is a pretty ironic commentary on the political life of this country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) claimed during the last election campaign that he had the answer to the provincial and perennial question of the two solitudes. The two solitudes of the past have now become the economic solitudes of the present.
In addition to converting regional economic policy with long-term goals into cyclical unemployment policies of
[Mr. Nowlan.)
December 18, 1970

short-term duration, the bill is placing the future growth and industrial fabric of the land in the hands of one man, namely the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. No matter how wise, rational or benevolent is the minister, he has all the frailties and failings of a human being. I suggest this is the important difference between the original regional incentives bill and Bill C-205 that is now amending the act.
Under the government reorganization bill that created the minister's department, the minister was given discretion over which applications to allow and how much money to grant those applicants. However, under the regulations passed pursuant to the bill the authority and discretion of the minister was restricted to areas of economic disparity. I suggest that the timeless problems in these well demarcated areas of economic disparity helped to dilute and to define the unlimited discretion of the minister. As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and other members have said, these pockets of disparity can be pinpointed on the map. This bill is now extending the boundaries of the designated areas to include part of the industrial heartland of Canada. In effect, the minister is being given unlimited discretion effectively to direct the placement of new industry in more than half of Canada, and to define what is to be the expansion of existing industry.
I suggest that the effect of any decision that the minister might make will last for a longer time than any restriction that is imposed upon him in the bill. His signature to any application for assistance will survive any member of this House. As a parliamentarian this is the basic issue here, the arbitrary, unfettered and unrestricted discretion that is now being given to the minister, albeit for the most laudable objectives.
Reference was made earlier to Mr. Howe, who was also a noted economic expansionist and industrialist, a man who obviously did a lot to develop the economy of Canada. It was not too many years ago that he asked "What's a million?". I suggest that Mr. Howe was being prophetic, because "what's a million?" is pretty irrelevant in terms of the millions that this minister will have at his disposal and direction in order to help stimulate and expand industry in new areas of the country including, as I say, a large part of the industrial heartland of Canada. This issue here is whether any minister who has been elected to legislate should be able to dictate so effectively the future course of the economic development of this country. This is my objection to this bill.
Another issue which has been hit upon by hon. members who have spoken is the question whether a regional development program should be a policy for curing cyclical unemployment; whether long range plans should be merged into short run priorities, or whether the permanent solution of problems in areas of regional economic disparity should be diluted, perhaps even destroyed, by bypassing problems of admittedly critical importance but hopefully only of a temporary nature; whether in this bill the chronically ill parts of the country will not become even sicker, notwithstanding that there is a crisis in Canada in areas that have been geographically
Regional Development Incentives Act defined. I do not want to misquote the minister, but he said he wanted a 15-year program. He said he did not want measures of expediency, yet we have them in this bill. I suggest he will have to exercise the wisdom of Solomon in the administration of his proposed cure in order to prevent the spawning of increased stresses and strains to the fabric of this nation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Basically, what is proposed is the concept of arbitrary discretion to deal with long-term regional development programs and long-term social and employment objectives. I do not want to repeat what has been said about the specific problems, and I am sure that will make many hon. members happy. I would like to believe that this bill is senseless, because if it is my fears would not be justified. I think there is something hidden in it.
Undoubtedly there will be administrative problems. When Professor Brewis testified before the committee he outlined the types of selective assistance available at different levels, 10 per cent, 25 per cent and 35 per cent, depending on the area. I suggest the problems we have in respect of regional development and national economic development will be compounded by this bill. If anything this bill takes on the aspect of a Trojan horse. It may be that many people in the country will look at this measure as the Trojan horse was looked upon. We all recall that the Trojan horse was inhabited by soldiers and when these people realize the enemies inherrent in this bill they will then know its potential for inhibiting production. In many aspects, this bill is just as deceptive as the Trojan horse.
Professor Brewis also suggested this measure would not create jobs, as the minister suggests. He refers to the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the $130 million to be used in this regard. He also mentioned the cost of $5,000 per job under the DREE program. This man is a professor who has written many books on regional economic disparity. He suggests that if you use the $130 million at an estimated rate of $5,000 per job, these incentives will create a potential of between 25,000 and 30,000 jobs. We all know that we have between
600,000	and 700,000 unemployed at the present time.
I should like to know where special incentives should be made available. If we believe the minister, this provision in the bill is supposed to stimulate growth. Where is this growth to be stimulated. Does it provide incentives to attract existing industry interested in locating in Canada. This is a factor which bothers me, having regard to the Atlantic provinces. It would also bother me if I lived in Ontario.
These incentives must be held out to attract industry to newly designated areas. The amount in relation to Montreal and other areas is 10 per cent. That might be sufficient to attract some industries to locate in those areas rather than in other parts of the country. We must keep in mind the differential involved, because 10 per cent in respect of a large industry likely to locate in the Montreal area is much different from 35 per cent in respect of a small industry locating in another designated area.

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
On December 8 the Prime Minister made a speech in Saint John, New Brunswick. On page 5 of his press release he refers to the potential markets in New England for manufactured goods from the Atlantic Provinces. Let me quote from this press release as follows:
Industry is now coming to New Brunswick and to the Atlantic provinces. It is attracted in part by the availability of resources, of transportation, of a skilled labour force, and in part by the government incentives such as those offered by the federal department of Regional Economic Expansion.
It then reads:
As it comes, those factors that I have mentioned should be taken into account to ensure a long-range, healthy type of development.
As I mentioned earlier, the special incentives set up in Bill C-205 may very well have a counter effect to that which the Prime Minister had in mind three or four days before this bill was placed before this House for second reading. It might be that in St. Jean, Quebec, you would have greater access to the New England market for manufactured goods than you would have in Saint John, New Brunswick, because this 10 per cent incentive for designated areas is very deceptive.
We heard evidence before the committee that during the existence of this measure some 400 applications had been made, but that only six applicants had received the maximum grant. I understand three of those were in New Brunswick, one in Prince Edward Island, one in Quebec and one in Saskatchewan. There was an indication in the press release that the Atlantic area was to receive the same 10 per cent incentive as the designated area around Montreal. In this regard, there will also be a ministerial discretion. When you consider these things, together with the fact that a maximum grant has only been given to six applicants during the history of this measure, it does not require a complicated computer to realize that the 10 per cent incentive in a heavily populated area will have a much greater effect than a 35 per cent grant to a small company in the Atlantic area.
When the minister appeared before the committee, he indicated he wanted to balance that which was being granted new areas with what had previously been offered in the Atlantic areas. I do not read in any ulterior motives, but the fact is that only six applicants have received the full grant. It is deceptive and highly illusionary to suggest that the 10 per cent to newly designated areas will be offset by the same 10 per cent in the Atlantic area.
It should be obvious that industry of greater magnitude will establish in Montreal and other heavily populated areas in the industrial heartland of this country. A maximum grant of 35 per cent for a smaller plant in a smaller populated area will not be equivalent to a 10 per cent grant to a bigger industry in these populated areas. A great deal will depend on how the minister exercises his discretion. If he is not careful, he could effectively stifle new industry in the Atlantic area and smother existing industry. In this way this measure would run completely counter to the direction the Prime Minister
mentioned four days after this bill was given first reading and just before it was presented to the House for second reading. I wonder whether these two ministers ever got together in this regard. The Prime Minister may have been sincere in the speech he made in Saint John, but what he suggested was almost as deceptive as some parts of this bill.
There are other specific problems I could mention, but the government has decided in its wisdom to take this course in helping those areas which need special help. They will have to live with it.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Then, we have my prophecy in respect of this bill. This is my third, perhaps my shortest but more serious point. I still believe, no matter whether the minister be a Conservative, a Liberal, an NDP or of what political stripe, he should not have the unfettered discretion this bill would give him, although for the most laudable objective. Fortunately, the minister did acquiesce in the committee and agree that there shall be a council to sort of supervise the administration of the act. We will be most interested to see what form that council takes, because we know it will not have a legislative effect but only an effect after the fact. However, I would not wish to be in the minister's shoes with the discretion he will have. It is a fantastic commentary on the evolution of politics, at a time when governments delegate authority to delegate authority, that there has not been an expression on this question of the delegation of the appropriate power. I am sure the minister will try to exercise this power most sincerely. But if I were a political animal in any part of the country, which I am, I would be exposed to and involved in almost unnatural pressures to put my signature to an application in my area, or if I were from British Columbia to an application for that area, in respect of the particular problems which arise.
I am amazed that there has not been more of a complaint, because the new designated areas remove part of the restriction we had before. The minister, and any minister, obviously had to look at the facts of life before he granted or disapproved a loan. The history of the economy of a particular area would, in large measure, indicate whether or not a prospective industry would be a viable industry. But when a minister begins exercising discretionary power in half of this country, and particularly in the industrial heartland, it is an entirely different matter.
The other point of principle was the question of the mixture of long-term development or regional policies now being instituted, diluted and/or destroyed by shortterm cyclical policies. But the principle of this bill again contains a sort of an irony. Again this should involve and interest all members of this House. A government which campaigned and won a strong mandate on the one-Canada theme not too long ago, and which at federal-provincial conferences has been completely against any form of special status anywhere, has by this bill, again for laudable objectives, sought to give special status to one-half of Canada. I suggest it is thereby making two Canadas.

December 18, 1970

Although it is passing strange-and perhaps if it were not so serious I could be more humorous about it-I suggest we will be faced with Bill C-205, amendments to Bill C-205 and amendments to other bills to help particular parts of this country. While it might be Quebec and Montreal today, it could be another part of the country tomorrow, unless this ministry starts to get tuned into the times and develops some viable constitutional policies which reflect the realities of this land. This is just a patch work job at best. How soon will it be before the Canadian people start to ask us if we are to provide particular funds to help particular parts of the country for various constitutional purposes. That is part of the gut issue in a bill that is anonymously called, an act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act. We know we cannot continue in this unreal world much longer. We are not all the same. I am glad the minister is sponsoring this bill because if we can have the economic two Canadas which this bill would establish, then surely the minister would have some flexibility in respect of his dealings with his great friend and colleague the Prime Minister of this land.
Perhaps the minister could persuade the Prime Minister to adopt some flexibility in his constitutional stance, so that instead of having repeated constitutional discussions that accomplish nothing we could start to have the give and take of ideas that would reflect the realities of the land and our regional differences. I am not speaking about French or English and/or third force, but that is part of it. I say we are living in a dreamland if we believe this country is all the same. Quebec is different, and thank God it is different in so many ways. But let us not have this smokescreen that has polluted constitutional discussions, because unless we start to wake up and face reality we will have more bills such as Bill C-205. Surely, if the minister can set a precedent and, in effect, set up two Canadas economically, he can go to the Prime Minister and suggest that the Prime Minister be a little more flexible. I am not talking about a constitutional two Canadas, special status, associate status or deux nation. The good old Postmaster General can smile, Mr. Speaker. He may be smiling because he wished us all Christmas cheer and because there is to be a six-day delivery; thank God. But I suggest that so long as we legislators continue the sterile and puerile debate on semant c differences in respect of what we need in our constitution, we will be faced with the hard realities of provision such as we have in Bill C-205.
If there is any message which I would hope the minister would get from this debate, in view of all the apprehension I have about the principle of this bill, I would hope it would be to take the precedent which has been established by this bill to the constitutional discussions so that we could have some progress there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, pursuant to special order adopted by the House earlier today, the House will now rise to resume its work at seven o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Regional Development Incentives Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 7 p.m.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we are debating amendments to the Regional Development Incentives Act. In other days when Canada was not plagued with such serious economic difficulties, the minister seemed to have a much more realistic concept of what he hoped to accomplish with this act. In Halifax in October of 1968 the minister said the following about the purpose of the Regional Development Incentives Act:
So let me emphasize my first principle. It is that we will not offer short-run expediency or long-run vagueness. We want to have constructive, practical, medium-length plans. We are going to plan for every possible effort for 15 years.
At that time the minister was proposing a plan which would help the slow-growth areas of this country which are in need. It was obvious then, and it is even more obvious today, that in the ordinary run of events-I am thinking in terms of the market economy-the slow-growth areas would not and could not get the kind of industry and economic development which they require to use their raw materials and human resources.
Therefore, since one could not expect private industry to go into those slow-growth areas because it could do much better in the golden triangle of Toronto, Hamilton and Windsor and in the Montreal and Vancouver areas, the Maritimes, eastern Quebec, eastern Ontario and parts of Manitoba simply could not do without the kind of programs which were proposed under the Reginal Development Incentives Act. But now we have a different situation from that of October, 1968, when the minister made those remarks which I quoted. Today we are faced with major unemployment. There are almost 500,000 unemployed and by February, 1971, the figure will probably rise to 800,000. Almost 40 per cent of that figure, Mr. Speaker, is concentrated in the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
When the minister suggests that members of this House from any party who criticize this bill and the proposals he is making, do so because they are anti-Quebec, he is not only being unfair but is doing a disservice to that province. I think it is fair to say that there is no Member of Parliament who does not realize that the problems of Quebec are so serious, with the unemployment and poverty there, that they must be solved. Unless they are solved, this country will not survive.


Mr. Caccia:: I wonder when-


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the backbenchers who are only here to vote when their fuehrer or leader tells them to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: -do not need to object as the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is endeavouring to do. If he wants to speak, he can do so later. I do not think I have taken very much time and I do not need any

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act lectures from him as to when I should speak, or for how long.
The problem of unemployment is of such importance that the country demands that major efforts be made. The expenditure of the $130 million which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) mentioned in his budget speech will not solve the problems of Canada or the unemployment problems of Quebec. The estimate of the department, which I think is too conservative, is that it costs $5,000 to provide one job under this program, so the total number of jobs we can expect to find is 26,000. Two months from now we will be faced with something like
200,000	people out of work. This unemployment is to a large extent due to the economic and fiscal programs adopted by the government on the advice of its top civil servants in the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance. The government decided that restraint was necessary so they put on the economic brakes and created unemployment. It is true that this year the increase in the cost of living has been lower than usual, but it has inevitably led to an increase in unemployment. The minister should have known that this would be a consequence in light of his background in the labour movement.
Having created unemployment on the one hand, on the other the government expects to meet some of the resultant problems with this program. But, Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, this bill and its proposals are too little and too late. In the department, in the legislation and in the administration there are very serious defects. The minister is probably the only person who knows anything about this department but he does not realize the difficulties. Some of the best people in the department, those who had the senior positions, have left. That is not an accident, Mr. Speaker. They left because the department and its programs have changed from being people-oriented, being concerned with the needs of the people they supposedly a'm to help, and have become almost entirely industry-oriented. I have talked to some of these people and I gather that they feel the department and the minister are now prepared to accept any type of growth, no matter whether it hurts the community concerned.
Let me illustrate briefly what I mean, Mr. Speaker. We have the ARDA and FRED programs, but what is their purpose? It is to rationalize the agricultural industry in the areas in which they aic oeing instituted and to consolidate farms into economic units. These are worthwhile and laudable objectives. But as far as I can see, no plans have been made to encourage farmers to leave the farm. Instead of being the rural poor, they will become the city pooi;, living on welfare. So far that is the only progress I can see as a result of the ARDA and FRED programs.
The department is providing incentives to industry but it does not seem to be concerned about how these are used. It certainly does not seem to be concerned about what type of employment is created. Under one of the earlier programs the government of Canada participated with the former government of Manitoba in the establishment of a pulp and paper industry at Le Pas-Churchill Forest Industries. I am not going into detail about how much was contributed in grants and subsidies and how little the owners, the believers in free enterprise, contributed of their own capital. But it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that no provision was made by the department which put up the money, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to apply pressure on the owners to employ the people who live in that area. There are virtually no Indians employed with Churchill Forest Industries at Le Pas. This is another valid criticism which can and must be made of the program which this government has devised.
Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the committee but I had an opportunity to speak to some of the members of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council a few days ago.
I tell the minister that from them I got the impression that they could see no consistent, well thought-out program in the minister's statements or his answers to questions which would indicate that the government has any real plan on how to use the Regional Development Incentives Act.
As I said earlier, those who have criticized the present legislation support the idea that a special effort must be made to create more employment in the province of Quebec. But when the government and the minister bring in proposals which have the effect of making more than half the total land area of Canada eligible for assistance under a Regional Development Incentives Act, they destroy the whole point of an act designed to help slow-growth areas.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
If the minister is not concerned about the kind of comments, criticisms and suggestions made by people who appeared before the committee, people such as Professor Brewis, I do not know what one can do. Professor Brewis' comments about the program are so important and so crucial to any kind of success that it seems to me the minister is under an obligation to explain to the House where Professor Brewis was wrong, if he was wrong. I wish to quote a couple of paragraphs from the material Professor Brewis supplied to members of the House who were interested in his comments. He said:
The increase in the number of designated areas of one sort and another will almost certainly lead to action by provincial governments to include still other areas. The Saskatchewan government, for example, offers aid to firms outside the federally assisted areas. I suspect moreover that some provincial governments will become increasingly critical of federal policies of regional development.
Because we do not have a well thought-out federal plan which has been co-ordinated with the provinces, we are witnessing a kind of bargain basement sale. Every province, and certainly every have-not province, is busy with its own incentive plan. Each province bids against the others in the hope that industry will be encouraged to come to it and not to any other. I am thinking of the concessions made in Newfoundland. In particular, I am thinking of the oil refinery.


James Aloysius McGrath: That was a give-away.
[Mr. Orlikow.l
December 18, 1970


David Orlikow: That was a steal. The people of Newfoundland have been stolen blind. I am also thinking of the concessions made in Nova Scotia. I am thinking of the heavy water plant and of the Clairtone plant. I am also thinking of the Churchill Forest Industries project in Manitoba about which I spoke earlier.
I am not an ardent supporter of our so-called free enterprise system. I suggest to hon. members that no government, whether federal or provincial, should give away money without first taking the most elementary precautions. Just look at the article which appeared in the Financial Post. It shows how governments, federal and provincial, have given away tremendous amounts of money. Large concessions have been made in the province of Manitoba in respect of cutting wood, and so on, and the government has not received anything in return! The so-called owners have not put up any of their own money.
Professor Brewis says that if we accept the figures of the Minister of Finance who said that $130 million would be spent on this program, and if we assume that it takes $5,000 worth of incentives grants to create one job, which has been our past experience, we shall create between
25.000	and 30,000 jobs as a result of these incentive grants. I said earlier that we face the prospect of between
600.000	and 800,000 people being unemployed in the next three or four months. The results of the program will be pretty marginal. The massive changes will not come about as a result of this legislation about which we have been talking for the past couple of years.
Professor Brewis said:
The job facing DREE to effect the long-run economic structural changes which are necessary in the lagging regions is big ...and complicated enough without saddling the department with additional and largely unrelated responsibilities.
That is precisely what will happen as a result of the changes which the minister is proposing in this legislation. There are other ways of reducing massive unemployment which do not involve what the government proposes under this legislation. A housing program, Mr. Speaker, particularly for people in the low-income bracket, would provide jobs more quickly than would be provided by this program.
We believe this bill has moved away from the concept the minister proposed several years ago. That concept had a great deal of merit and we supported it. It concentrated on growth points or centres. There is now no indication as to how the department will decide the merits of a proposal made to it. So far as we can tell, it will be done in an ad hoc, almost accidental manner. This will not achieve the results we have a right to expect. Such a course of action will inevitably or will seem to lead to political manipulation. After all, those who will not receive money-and the money will be limited-will say, whether they are justified in saying so or not, that they did not receive the money because there was someone closer to the minister whom he wanted to help.
Unless he lays down clear and specific guidelines and principles on how this program is to operate, the minister and the government will face endless trouble. This bill
23568-170}
Regional Development Incentives Aci will be meaningless unless greater financial resources of the federal government are allocated for fighting the problem of regional development. When you talk about spending $100 million or $150 million on stimulating the economy when you should spend about $1 billion, you will not accomplish very much.
We object very strenuously to any government simply giving away money. If we are to operate under the free enterprise system, and if free enterprise is to continue those who enter such enterprises should be prepared to put up the money themselves. After all, they will make any profit which is to be made. They go into business because they expect to make a profit. They do not go into business-I am not being critical because, after all, this is an economic fact of life-if they do not expect to make a profit. We are not talking about small grants. We are not talking in terms of thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. We are talking of individual grants running into millions of dollars. We are talking about grants, loans and subventions which will make up one-third or more of the total cost of a project.
How does this sort of program operate? I think the answer is perfectly obvious. I again refer to the CFI project in Manitoba. In that project the federal and provincial governments put up the bulk of the money. I do not think the industry concerned put up any money. Under that sort of system it is like saying, "Heads you win, tails we lose." If the grant is made available and the enterprise is successful, the loan will be paid back. Usually such money is lent at a subsidized rate of interest. The loan will be repaid and the owners will make the profit.
The Financial Post is skeptical about any prospect of success for the venture at Le Pas. I am skeptical about the success of many of the projects undertaken in other parts of the country. Let me put it this way. If the chances of success were good, private enterprise would have gone in without the government's support in the first place. If the enterprise is a failure, to a large extent the money lost will be at the expense of the people of Canada; it will consist of grants and loans which have come from government sources. One does not need to be a revolutionary to say that if the government of Canada is to become involved in projects-I think we should become involved in more of these, and not fewer-in slow-growth areas, it should do so to a very large extent through the provision of equity capital.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
If a project is a failure, we will not lose any more than under the present system of loans and grants. On the other hand, if the project is a success, Canadians will benefit from the equity which they have in the concern to which they have made the loan. This is something which even this government, conservative as it is, ought to give serious consideration. In my opinion, the major defect in this bill is that it does not provide for any overall comprehensive development plan. It does not provide for the development of plans by co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. This has been one of the defects in the program of regional

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act development since its inception. What happens is that competition develops between the provinces and the municipalities. This is bad for all concerned. Each is forced to offer more and more in the way of incentives, almost bribes, in the hope that they will attract industries which will provide jobs. In the process, they are faced with the tremendous financial responsibility of providing schools, roads, and sewer and water facilities which are necessary for industries in a modern society. It is also necessary to provide housing for the people concerned. This program is industry oriented. It fails to provide for the infrastructure which enables the provinces and municipalities to supply the services required by industry.
We would support this or any other government which made proposals to improve living conditions and produce jobs at adequate wages for the large number of Canadians who are either unemployed or underemployed. We would support this kind of a program. However, the minister and his department have made a hodge-podge of it. They have diluted and subverted it to such an extent that it is not possible for members on this side of the House to support this proposal.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, during the last few days the members of this House and the members of the Standing Committee on Regional Development have been dealing with a measure which has changed the direction of the basic thrust of government policy with respect to economic disparity in some regions of Canada. I wish to address a very few remarks on that point this evening. The arguments I wish to make are simple. They are based on the premise that there are regions in Canada that not only suffer from disparity when compared with the rest of the country but have particular disparities in their areas.
Some time ago the government embarked on what we understood to be a long range program aimed at the infrastructure. It was to overcome the disparity that existed and provide a greater share of the national prosperity for those regions. We recognized that there was disparity and devised a program to attack it. The program has failed. I can say that forcibly, simply, and with the contempt that the change of direction deserves. This would not change the basic fact that the programs designed to date have failed.
We placed a fair amount of hope in DREE, the regional attack on disparity. Many of us shelved what we in our wisdom thought to be a more appropriate approach, the constitutional approach, which would have given us the instruments to help ourselves. We were prepared to give the government a chance to see what it could do. We did so because we trusted the minister and the government. At the time we shared to some extent his enthusiasm. We have been let down because the program has not worked. For one reason or another, the minister has admitted that it will not work.
The amendment to the bill emphasizes the need for regional policies. We need policies for those regions in Canada affected by disparity, not policies to be in effect
for 18 months or 2 years but for the long haul. In other words, we have to know where we stand from political whim to political whim. It was my position that the regional policy would be the instrument that we needed to overcome these difficulties. We have tried the mockery of ad hoc approaches to regional development, but we have failed.
It is time that the people from the Atlantic provinces faced up to one or two basic facts. Policies born in central Canada are born without a damn for the economic condition and the plight of the Atlantic provinces. This has been true for 200 years. A review of the financial history of Canada will reveal that central and western Canada found the capital they required and the surplus deposits built up between the mid 1700's and the early 1900's in the Atlantic provinces. Those of us in the Atlantic provinces recognize quite readily what happened to some of these surplus deposits.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
In other words, for 100 years and perhaps for the better part of 200 years, there was no apology from the rest of Canada when our surplus deposits were drawn off for the development of the central regions. Now, in the middle of the 20th Century and particularly in the past 30 years, it has become apparent that the atlantic area is not able to keep abreast of the rapidly expanding central part of the country largely because of the central policies of successive governments. I shall not tar any particular government for this but, rather refer to governments generally. The effect has been recognized, I think, and I would hope by people who are seriously concerned about the plight of the Atlantic provinces. I repeat, I believe it is time we began to stop complaining bitterly about ad hoc measures and attempts to resolve the problems from time to time by governments which are oriented toward central Canada, and started making our own case for regional policies which would permit us to have our own banking institutions, which would allow us a far greater control over the fiscal and monetary policy of this country. This would be particularly useful with respect to national policies when, from time to time, the government deemed it necessary to implement measures to restrain or stimulate the economy.
It is in this area that we have felt our greatest wounds in recent years. We need changes in the tax incentive field. We need changes in the application of brakes on the economy that are bought from time to time by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). In other words, we need some control over our regional financial destiny. We need a return to some civilized human respect for the problems that we face. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, when anybody bothers to look at this bill, that what we are really talking about are the terms of our own protection. I grant the minister is concerned and I do not say that he is not concerned. I just think he is so preoccupied with other problems that the problems of the Atlantic provinces rate about 34th or 35th in the back of his mind. What I object to really is that perhaps because of this we keep being faced with subterfuge, if you will, by indul-

December 18, 1970

gence, and then when we catch them out, when we discover that they are a little bit off base, they are quite prepared to run around and do something. They are quite prepared to throw us the scraps off the table, anything is good enough.
We feel, Mr. Speaker, and there is nothing really complicated about it; we are falling behind the national economy. The minister knows this. The government knows it. But they just don't seem to give a damn. They do not seem to care. It doesn't seem to matter that our nation will not grow and remain unified as long as we have this disparity, as long as we have this casual attitude of saying, whenever pressure is brought to bear: Do something for them but don't go quite so far that we cannot change it in the event that something happens to begin to upset the delicate balance here in Ontario. At the risk of being accused of being anti-Quebec, I just cannot understand why the government does not stand up and say Quebec needs a few billion dollars. Does the minister, does the government, think that the people of Canada are not aware of some of the problems in Quebec or are scared to put the national economy to work with respect to solving these problems. Of course, the government does not pay too much attention to this. It is very obvious that they do not. All that I can effectively see, in this whole exercise, is that the government is recognizing the requirement of certain of the regions of the Province of Quebec and has sought to overcome them. This is commendable. I support this. The more openly they go about it, the more I support it.
But in the doing of this, Mr. Speaker, they have sought to find a political balance in the country, the political balance which they imagined was required. It was not a political balance, or the necessity for a political balance, which existed in the minds of Canadians from British Columbia to St John's, Newfoundland; it did not exist there, it existed in the minds of the government. So they embarked on this course. They thought: We will do what has to be done in Quebec and we will use the Maritimes to balance it out politically. But the massive amount of aid which has to go into Quebec could not be matched by any program the government could discern or develop in the Atlantic provinces. At least the caucus over there sounds very happy. Maybe they could come in and entertain us.


An hon. Member:: That's television over there.


J. Michael Forrestall: 
Thomas Miller Bell: They are always out of tune.


J. Michael Forrestall: As they stumble in their harmony just outside the chamber, so they stumble in the development of programs to overcome regional disparity.


An hon. Member:: But they will rise again.


J. Michael Forrestall: I doubt it. The strategy adopted by the government to control inflation has had serious and grievous consequences for Canadians in all walks of life, not least of which are those who are fortunate enough to be unemployed in a large urban centre such as Montreal. Their plight is a serious one. But their problems are not resolved at the expense of other regions in Canada. You cannot create good out of evil no matter how hard you try. This program is going to cause privation because it is going to be watered down. The program is being made ad hoc in its approach to serious problems, if we are to be at all meaningful about national unity.
Evidence of regional unemployment can hardly be used as a yardstick in this regard. As I said a moment ago, the consequences of being unemployed in Montreal are far different from being unemployed in the Atlantic provinces, be it in the urban centres or the rural areas. The 10 per cent advantage now given to the Atlantic area means absolutely nothing when viewed in terms of a market that is 300 per cent larger. It is ludicrous to think that over the course of the next 18 months any firm that hopes to make a mark on the national economy would move to the Atlantic provinces when it can get exactly the same opportunities in the markets of Montreal.
As the deputy minister himself said, this bill and its whole approach is based on political expediency. The

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
need for regional policies is clear, and it is the only path down which we can now travel. I hope that the premiers of the Atlantic provinces, two of them now, one not quite so new and the fourth almost a father of confederation, will direct their attention during the coming months of 1971 to this question. Without regional policies and other instruments under our control, it is eminently clear that we are not going to overcome the effects of regional economic disparity no matter how well intentioned our efforts.
This country is split badly on a number of very important and vital issues. Economic disparity will not help to heal any of these crucial problems. In particular, it will not help to resolve these problems to approach them in an atmosphere that seems to be one of subterfuge, guile, one that essentially is not honest or frank. It is time that this government addressed itself to the creation of a program that will overcome regional economic disparity. This failure to do so has been demonstrated not only to me, but to APEC and others who appeared before the committee, to editorial writers in the Atlantic provinces and to businessmen in the Atlantic provinces and in other regions designated under the old bill. The government has given an indication that they cannot be trusted with the economic destiny of Canada in the future.
Sometimes I wonder why the govenment is fearful of giving us these regional instruments that have been so often and for so long talked about. I wonder, too, about the long-range impact of such programs as, for example, the development of the Minas basin tidal power. What is going to be the reaction of businessmen if and when they are asked to make a decision with regard to the massive investment that will be required to implement the program, and they examine the records of the federal government in the matter of regional development only to find that it is, to say the least, inconsistent? During the last six or seven years we have not had a government that is prepared to address itself in a consistent manner to regional disparity. There is a problem here of fear of the unknown.
What is going to happen in 1972 when these areas have to be redesignated? What is going to happen to the Nova Scotia five year program? Where does it stand today? I have the suspicion-I do not know because no one has told me anything about this-that the program with respect to the development of metropolitan Halifax and Dartmouth has been shelved. There can only be one reaction on the part of industrialists and entrepreneurs to the lack of constancy in the attitudes, policies and programs of the federal government with particular relation to the Atlantic region.
The government thinks it has made things a little easier for us in the Maritimes. I say that is nonsense, balderdash. Unless they were a McCain, no firm would be interested in the 10 per cent differential offered in the bill. They would demand the full amount or alternatively go to the United States for funds. Who is going to come to the Atlantic provinces when a market the size of Montreal is available? Is the government prepared to change this situation if, by the end of June, 1971, there is

a marked fall off of applications? It disturbed me that
neither the minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary have bothered to speak on this matter, except to answer questions yesterday, in what I thought was almost an arrogant way. No one has bothered to tell companies to put in applications in order that they may be approved. No one has told the companies that their applications are in the process of being approved or that they should withdraw them and re-apply.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
How generous is the government going to be if a company asks for a full grant under the terms of the amendment? The government has not bothered to answer these practical questions, let alone the more serious one I have just posed. How will we change direction if in six month's time we find we are receiving the proverbial you-know-what? What happens if we find we are being shafted? What will the government do if the worst possible thing happens in spite of the fact the minister says it will not happen?


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


J. Michael Forrestall: I suspect absolutely nothing will
happen, as the hon. member suggests. I suspect that until the appetite of Quebec has been satisfied in this ample manner, which I find unforgiveable, we will sit in the Atlantic provinces as we have for the last seven or eight years with no assistance, help or direction. These are our fears. I think these fears are real.
If this matter comes to a vote tonight I must say to the minister that I cannot honestly indicate how I will vote because I am disturbed by the implications of the measure. I should like to believe what the minister has said, but I find this difficult in light of his comments in introducing the original bill.
Earlier today I was disturbed to the point that I intended to suggest tonight to hon. members that we should have a new minister who was not so bound up in the difficulties facing the government as this hon. minister is. It seems we should have a minister who is prepared to tell the country exactly what is wrong with the economy in all parts of our country, rather than a minister who says that all parts of the country must be assisted when they face problems. He should indicate how serious these problems are, and what the demands on our economy will be during the 1970's. We are prepared to do whatever can be done.
As long as I remain in this illustrious chamber I do not think I will ever understand the fear of the government about being honest with the people. Honesty of this type seems to be a magic elixir. I am sure the minister and the government would find the people of Canada quite prepared to pay whatever cost is necessary to assure every Canadian dignity and respect for his own worth and that of his neighbour. I am sure we would find them prepared to do whatever is necessary, without having to tear asunder well laid plans. The government must realize it does not have to overcome all the difficulties that
December 18, 1970

various regions experience. There is ample authority-under other statutes to overcome the difficulties which exist in the city of Montreal without having to dilute the one measure on which the Atlantic provinces have placed so much hope.
It is unfortunate that we will leave here tonight, having approved this bill, and still not knowing what will happen in six month's time if the worst of my fears come true. I hope to God they will not, but we still do not know what will happen if we find that no applications are being made to locate in the Atlantic provinces, except from industries that cannot make a go of it in Montreal or industries which do not want to market their product in that area. It may be that we will have applications from service industries which are similar to industries already located in the Atlantic region.
I do not think we have ever suggested that the Atlantic provinces should be turned into an industrialized area. Industrialization is good, but we do not necessarily want that sort of thing. What we do want is a program on which we can place a continuing trust and confidence. We want a program on the basis of which we can plan ahead for the next four or five years. We do not want to wake up one morning and find that something we did yesterday should have been postponed until tomorrow. This is not and never has been good enough. I suggest it will never be good enough.
The political impact of what is happening will not necessarily be felt anywhere in Canada this winter, let alone in Montreal. There is no way that new industry is going to get started between now and next spring. The minister should give some assurance that something will be done in the Atlantic provinces. He has said it only takes two or three weeks to process an application, in rare cases a little bit longer. Since he made that comment, I have received a number of letters and several phone calls. I will forward this correspondence to the minister if he wishes. It relates to specific cases in which it has taken five, six, seven and even eight weeks to process applications. In these cases, at least in the opinion of the applicants, all of the information was supplied in order that the applications could be finalized. Perhaps these people have been misled, but in terms of time the procedure has taken a lot longer than the minister suggested in the committee.
Even after five or six weeks, the implementation of this bill will have very little effect in the city of Montreal. It will have a long term effect on the industrial development of the Atlantic provinces. Within a period of two or three years from the implementation of this measure, I suggest that industry will not choose to locate in the Atlantic area but will opt in favour of the city of Montreal.
I had hoped that the minister would accept our amendment proposed yesterday rather than the token amendment he did accept. It is regrettable that he did not. I hope the minister will find some way of telling the people in the Atlantic provinces, and in other designated areas, just exactly what the government intends to do if this measure fails. This will have a very direct relationship to
Regional Development Incentives Act
the cutback in the number of applications and the growth we can expect.


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that the attentive capacity of hon. members is lessening. Because of the very late hour, and the fact that some Liberal members want to speak, I will try to be as brief as possible.
# (8:10 p.m.)
I had an opportunity to speak on this bill when it was first introduced last week and when it was in committee. However, I should like to summarize a few of my feelings this evening before the measure passes. First of all, Bill C-205 has now passed the committee stage. When it was before the committee we had an opportunity to hear the minister, his deputy and the witnesses who were called to appear. Then we had an opportunity to study the bill clause by clause and to hear the minister and his deputy again. During the time this bill has been studied I have been bewildered at times because there has seemed to be a lack of enthusiasm for the bill by government members.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: For example, to my knowledge, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) did not participate in the debate. The only way he has participated in the debate so far has been to interject from his seat or to speak on a point of order. I find this amazing. I feel sorry for the minister. I know he must be very unhappy about some of his backbenchers. He must feel very sad that they have neither defended his bill nor offered opinions or constructive criticism. I would not wish to be in his position and I am sure most members on this side of the House would not want to be in his position. I assume that some hon. members opposite will offer comments tonight in respect of this bill. I know the hon. member for Lan-ark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) and the deputy whip of that party are very happy. I hope some of these hon. gentlemen will participate in the debate. Where are the government members? Why are they not participating?
I believe we all realize that the problem we are discussing is serious. The purpose of this bill is to designate a few more areas in Canada and to raise the ceiling on loans and fees. I think we all recognize that in Canada the regional problems are very acute. We know the average income in places such as Newfoundland is much lower than it is in Ontario. We know that the increase in the per capita income in Newfoundland did not rise as rapidly as it did in Ontario, despite the fact that we have a regional policy and a department which should be looking after this matter.
We realize there are regional problems all over the world and that Canada's position is not unique. We also understand that one thing that has motivated this bill at this time is the special situation in the province of Quebec. I do not deny there are special problems in the province of Quebec which must be solved if we are to keep our country together and if we want to celebrate

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
Canada's 200th birthday. I suggest, however, that this is a bad bill, lor a number of reasons. First, the bill will create an administrative monstrosity: we will have five different types of designated areas in the country.
I think we should re-read some of the comments the minister made a year or two ago. At that time he spoke of trying to keep the regional development program and designated areas confined to certain sections of the country. He wanted to keep the program selective. He said that if it became too large, the program would negate itself. It seems to me that with the additional areas over 50 per cent of the country will be designated. This negates the government's earlier intentions and the philosophy it had when it introduced the idea of creating a new department to solve regional disparity in this country.
I am also concerned about the way in which grants are being handed out to private companies. The minister is handing out subsidies and grants to private companies as if they were going out of style. At times this is done without even considering the long-term effects and the commitments the companies may have in a particular region. From my knowledge of regional programs in other countries it would seem that when they have tried to solve problems of regional disparity the public has assumed greater responsibility, greater involvement and greater commitment. They have not tried to rely upon big companies and corporations to solve regional problems for them with public money.
Why do we have these problems of disparity and low incomes in some areas? I suggest much of the reason is that in the past we have relied entirely upon the corporate world and free enterprise to solve our problems, and as a result people in many regions of this country, not because of lack of training or skill but by reason of where they live have suffered from inequity and disparity. A company, naturally, will locate in an area where markets are close by, where transportation is convenient and cheap and where there are raw materials and resources. I suggest that if we are to properly plan our economy and eliminate much of the regional disparity and inequity which exists, the public sector must have a greater involvement than it has today; otherwise, as soon as the minister hands out grants and subsidies, many of these companies will wonder why they should remain in the area any longer.
Instead of continuing in this vicious circle, why do we not introduce to the House and the country a Canada Development Corporation? For five or six years the Liberal party has spoken of a Canada Development Corporation; it has been included in almost every Throne Speech since then. When he appeared before the committee, the minister suggested this might be one way to solve the problem of economic disparity in Canada. I believe the minister would be in favour of having a Canada Development Corporation. With his power and influence over the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which I assume must be great, I wonder why he does not try to motivate the Prime Minister toward instituting a Canada Development Corporation so that we could have a large amount of

capital on hand which could be directed to areas which need it. In this way the long-term planning would be better than it is today.
It appeared to me and to witnesses who were called before the Standing Committee on Regional Development in the past few days that the government is using regional programs to fight what essentially is a cyclical problem. The government is trying to solve many of Canada's problems with regional programs instead of with general economic reform and responsibility. I believe that in order to be successful, a regional development program must be very selective. I do not see the sense in designating a city such as Montreal and having it placed in the same category as the Atlantic provinces except for the extra 10 per cent granted to the Atlantic provinces. I do not think this will help develop the Atlantic provinces or eastern Quebec. I am sure a company would settle in Montreal in preference to the Atlantic provinces, despite the extra 10 per cent. If we are to solve the problems of places such as Montreal we must endeavour to correct the general economic picture in Canada.
I am also disturbed about the statements the minister has made. Earlier today, my colleague the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) read to the House a statement made by the Minister of Finance of the province of Quebec who was concerned about some of the statements the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) has made about the economic state of the province of Quebec. Matters such as these are of concern to me.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
For such reasons as these, I would once again plead with the minister, without going on at great length, to re-analyse and re-think this whole policy for solving regional disparities in Canada, to be less sensitive to some political pressures that may be on him to include certain regions and exclude others. I suggest to the minister that he follow the philosophy which he outlined a year or so ago when he talked about designating only certain areas, trying to build up the infrastructure, to use the growth centre idea. I appeal to the minister not to get carried away by providing huge grants to certain companies to locate in certain areas. We find today that, as a result of these amendments, a company can now, by combining both a grant and a loan guarantee, get up to 80 per cent of the total cost of locating in some areas of this country. As one hon. member said, this is too much. As a matter of fact, about a year and a half ago the minister himself was saying that if we are going to give subsidies or grants of 40 per cent or higher, we might as well be running the industry ourselves. Why not? If the Canadian people are going to take risk to that extent and invest that much money, why can we not have share in the operation and then have the chance of reaping some of the long term benefits that a company like this would provide?
I will conclude by saying that I am very concerned about the regional development plan. There are five different types of designated areas. To me, this seems like a real monstrosity. It is growing in a very unplanned way.
December 18, 1970

You have the minister jumping back and forth, not sure of what he is doing, giving out grants to all types of companies. He has become nothing more than a great, big, friendly Santa Clause on a pogo stick that has gone berserk.
I suggest to the minister that he look at the whole program once again. If he wants to keep Canada together as a country, much more than bilingualism and bicultur-alism will have to be involved. We will have to make every region of this country an equal partner within confederation, socially and economically. Only when we do this, can we be sure that Canada will stay together as a nation. This is why I am so concerned about the future of this department. I think that if the minister pursues problems such as unemployment today, then he will fail, and six months from now he will come back to Parliament to ask us to designate a few more areas. I think we might as well start thinking about designating the whole country because we have almost done that now. There is not much of the country left to designate, anyway. So, I suggest to the minister that many of the problems he is trying to solve should be solved through the adoption by the government of an over-all financial or economic policy rather than by a policy administered only by his department.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, when the regional economic expansion program was first introduced, I think, if I recall correctly, most of us lauded it. It appeared to be the instrument through which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would fulfil one half of his total election program, namely, to work toward the elimination of regional disparity. We all remember the other half of the Prime Minister's election program which was to promote and encourage a just society. The Prime Minister has since dropped this particular program. He says that the just society was a slogan. He does not like slogans now, and he threw out the just society. That was 50 per cent of his election platform. Now, with Bill, C-205 as we say down in Newfoundland, he is heavin' out the other half. I think we would do well to remember this. I do not think we can over-emphasize it. The minister himself does not deny it.
The original intention of the incentives program was, in effect, to bring the disadvantaged areas at least somewhat closer economically to the central industrialized areas of Canada. This was a special program with a specific purpose and that purpose was spelled out very clearly. As I say, we landed it. We regarded it as a fulfilment of the Prime Minister's promise and as being a serious program that could possibly solve many of our problems in the Atlantic area which everybody agreed was disadvantaged. Is it any wonder now that some members on this side of the House are left with an uneasy feeling?
The effect of this bill will be to include in the incentives area the city of Montreal and a couple of other large areas in central Canada. I have been very concerned about this throughout the week as 1 sat on the committee. The minister thought it proper at that time,
Regional Development Incentives Act although I do not really think he meant to do it, to come out with the old slogan "you are anti-Quebec". What kind of nonsense is this? We are not anti-Quebec. My colleagues and I feel the same way when we go to the great city of Montreal.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is very important. I would like to know when I said that the hon. member was anti-Quebec?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: It is my understanding that this is on the record, that the minister actually accused my colleagues of being anti-Quebec.


An hon. Member:: No, that is not so.


An hon. Member:: That is pure mischief.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I cannot substantiate that-


Raymond J. Perrault: Then take it back.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: There was one other time when the minister claimed something was not on the record when it was. I believe this statement is on the record. Anyway, I want to emphasize that the majority of people on this side of the House are not anti-anything. When we go into the great city of Montreal, we are proud that this is part of our country. When we go into Toronto, we feel the same way. When we come into this capital city, we are proud that the few of us who pay taxes in Newfoundland contribute to this. We feel that this is our country, and we resent any implication that any remarks we have to make are anti-this or anti-that. We do not like that.
In the short time that I have been in this chamber I have seen too much of the damned-if-you-do and dam-ned-if-you-don't type of legislation which gives a great advantage to one area of the country and a few crumbs to another area. We are accused of perhaps being anti-Quebec if we vote against it, and at the same time our own constituents might blame us if we vote against the few crumbs that are in it for them. As I understand it, everybody knew there was a tremendous rate of growth in the central part of Canada and the idea of the Regional Development Incentives Act was to lure industry into the Atlantic provinces and the western parts of Canada, areas in which there had been no industrial expansion. This afternoon my colleague from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and several other members, said that this program had been diluted. I am disappointed with the whole program, as I am sure many others are. I do not want anybody to say that we adopt this attitude because we are anti-Quebec. That is not the case. It is simply because the program was designed as an attempt to look after the problems of particular areas of this country which were not properly developed but now, with the inclusion of these other industrial areas, I have lost the faith that I had in it.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
From September 1 to November 30 of this year, .23 per cent of the jobs created by this program all across the

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act country went to Newfoundland, that is less than one-quarter of one per cent. Under the new program, we are told it will be possible to get 35 per cent of the capital costs of a project instead of the former 25 per cent. Looking at the figures for Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, I am moved to ask what the difference is between 25 per cent of nothing and 35 per cent of nothing-it could be 100 per cent and still mean nothing.
A few days ago in committee the minister told us that he and his department had asked the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council to investigate why the program is not succeeding in Newfoundland. Does he seriously want them to report on this while at the same time saying, "We are now including the great industrial area of Montreal." The reason is obvious, Mr. Speaker. Any program that has the same guidelines for the industralized areas of this country as it has for Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick is not based on a firm premise. It defeats itself and contradicts itself. This is a program to combat regional disparity but the program is the same for the whole country. It has the same rates of benefit, the same amount of money payable to a potential developer for jobs created in Montreal as in the outports of Newfoundland. In its very essence, Mr. Speaker, it is foolish.
What is the problem, Mr. Speaker? The minister is not here to listen but I believe I have the answer. I believe that the minister, as well as some other ministers, is too urbanized to be in charge of a program like this.


John Howard Lundrigan: That's right.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: We have had the champagne circuit, the pigs-in-the-blanket at cocktail time, and the rose in the teeth. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to convince the ministers that there are more smells in this country than that of a rose. There are the smells of the barnyard, the fish plant, the fishing boats and all the others that make up this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: They are too preoccupied with the carpeted office.
In committee the other day when I asked the minister why he persisted in excluding 75 per cent of the province of Newfoundland from this incentives program, he said that all of Newfoundland was included. It is not, Mr. Speaker. The province of Newfoundland includes some 110,000 square miles of that great expanse of Labrador.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I asked the same question when the incentives program was first introduced and I got the same answer, "We don't think there is any possibility of development up there." At the time, I thought that was fairly reasonable because other places were excluded as well. Now, I find that the city of Montreal is included, so I have to go back to my riding and explain to the people why it is excluded from a program designed to help just such areas. I have to explain why Montreal and a
number of other areas are included in the regional development incentives program to help disadvantaged areas. That is going to be a very difficult task. The minister's answer is not satisfactory. He just shrugs and says, "It is north". We cannot penalize people because they live in the north.
I tried to impress upon the minister some of the things I found when I travelled this area last summer. There are no big urban areas along the coast of Labrador; there are only communities of 500 or 600 people. I saw things that were frightening, Mr. Speaker, such as 10,000 pounds of fresh salmon being returned to the sea because there was no place to store it. There was no way to process it, so it went back to the sea and nobody seemed to give a you-know-what. There are several of these areas, but the minister says they cannot be designated because there is not much possibility of expansion. We don't want chemical plants and pulp mills along the coast of Labrador. We want a paltry few thousand dollars to help those people when they go out and catch fish, so that they will not have to throw it back into the sea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I suggest that this minister, and some of the others, should get out of their plush offices and go into the country to ascertain the problems relating to the departments they operate. It might be a real education, Mr. Speaker. I know it has been an education for me. When was the last time the minister visited the coast of Labrador? When is the next time he is going to visit it? I invite him to come now. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that since the program with which the minister has been so delighted has been changed from a regional program to a national one, he will have to set up another separate scheme to look after regional problems. I plead with him to include Labrador when he does that.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I promised my colleague for Bonaventure (Mr. Be-chard) that I would talk for only about four minutes. Perhaps I will take five minutes. The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) mentioned that about 10,000 pounds of salmon had to be thrown back into the ocean and that should make an impact on the thinking of this House, especially when we are trying to deal with legislation such as this. As the hon. member pointed out the other day in committee when we were considering the bill, the amount that the fishermen concerned lost may not mean very much to city slickers, but it was a very considerable sum for those who had expended a lot of sweat and energy in catching the fish. What he said should not be dismissed as rhetoric. As a matter of fact, I think I will speak for about four or five minutes. I really feel keenly about this matter. If we cannot cope with problems like that, we are indeed sinking.
I now come to the main burden of my speech, and I shall keep it brief. The makeup of the committee which studied the bill dealing with the regional economic devel-

December 18, 1970

opment and expansion of this nation is different from the makeup of any other committee of the House of Commons. Most committees proceed in an orderly and quiet way. This committee, I think, is mainly noted for the fractiousness of its members. There is a reason for their fractiousness. Every member of that committee is concerned about overcoming this matter of regional disparities, and every one of them becomes terribly excited. That is because not one member of the committee can be certain whether the matter being considered will, in the end, achieve something amounting to justice for all Canadians. Perhaps that is why debates on regional economic disparities in this House and in Committees tend to be much more heated than debates on almost any other subject under the sun. I have thrown out, those remarks because they underline a philosophical thought.
I wish to make two or three points, and I will be brief. Professor Brewis appeared before the committee and told us things that I think ought to be considered by the minister and his advisers. He said:
The Bill leaves me with a feeling of considerable uneasiness. It introduces what seems to be a major reorientation of policy in the direction of measures to reduce cyclical unemployment rather than measures to improve the long-run economic potential of the less favoured regions of the country.
That is fair indictment, and all of us ought to consider it. The APEC Newsletter in my hand says that, "When everything is designated, nothing is designated." Professor Brewis puts it this way:
The proportion of the population falling within designated regions of one sort or another will be increased from J to i. As a result the efficacy of the legislation to aid the formerly designated areas will be diluted.
For my third point, I wish to quote from the APEC Newsletter. I hope hon. members of the House realize I am trying to be brief. I am not trying to present an ordered argument. I am merely trying to put my case on record in the hope that it will deliver its punch whenever a program such as this is reviewed, as it must be, over a long period of time. The APEC Newsletter reads:
Another change in the DREE program may be more use to this region: that is extending guarantees of loans to manufacturing and larger commercial operations, including convention, hotel, office and shopping projects. This may relieve the provincial governments to some extent.
I hope that it will, Mr. Speaker. I continue to read:
On the other hand, this innovation also smacks of being hastily contrived to meet short-term needs only. Mr. Marchand should explain if assistance to commercial operations is to be a permanent feature of his program or if it, too, is to be dismantled when the immediate problems have passed.
I think the minister might try meeting that point when he speaks on third reading.
If the former, then a significant change in emphasis has taken place in DREE, the whole thrust of which has been to promote the development of secondary industry in designated areas. If secondary industry is now to be de-emphasized, relatively at least, a full and frank disclosure of DREE's reasoning should be given.
Regional Development Incentives Act
Again, Mr. Speaker, the minister will have the opportunity of meeting that point in a moment or two.
As long as uncertainty about DREE's basic philosophy of economic development remains, neither the private sector nor the provincial governments will be able to do any long-range planning.
I make these points because I think they are vital. They will have to be answered some time. Hopefully, they will be answered soon. We hope we will approve of the answers.
Finally, sir, I shall trespass on ground on which it is terribly dangerous for people to trespass. This legislation seeks to do what we have said over and over again must be done. It seeks, in part, to solve the economic problems that are bedeviling many young people in Quebec. I know this is tender ground to tread on, and I know that 1 am stepping over a quagmire that most people would not come near. I say that if we are spending millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in trying to solve the serious difficulties of that province, there ought to be no monkeying around with the language rights of Canadians in that province! I do not want to think that we, in this Parliament, are pouring out money that will be directed to certain people because they speak only one language or the other. We, in this Parliament, are committed to the full concept of federalism, and we are committed therefore to the concept that a person has the right to speak either one of the two official languages of Canada. Therefore, let no government say that the money can only be used to provide jobs for people who speak only one of the two official languages of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it requires 15 Senators to make up a quorum in the other place. I think, if we are really sincere in passing the best type of legislation, we should do our utmost to make sure that both Houses of Parliament consider this bill in depth. It affects the various areas of Canada. I, therefore, hope to hear right now that the members of the other place are willing to give this matter study in depth.


An hon. Member:: What a hope.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other place is asleep already.


John Leroy Skoberg: I consider myself, first, to be a Canadian.
My ancestors come from another country. My father, who came from Sweden, has experienced circumstances such as we are experiencing in Canada at this time. I believe that many people will be interested in reading a book that is now available in the library which deals with some economic aspects of Canada. I am referring to the book by Professor Gunnar Adler-Karlsson on the subject of reclaiming the Canadian economy. I think the minister ought to read this book, and then examine the legislation

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
now before the House. He ought to determine whether the amount of money being spent by the Canadian people for economic development in certain areas will benefit all Canadians, or whether some of that money will go to other countries in the form of dividends.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I will be amazed if the minister states he is not aware or is not concerned about whether the dividends we are paying in Canadian tax dollars are staying in Canada or going outside our borders. The same applies to the type of control over the tax dollars being put into this type of program. We must be concerned about whether our tax dollars being used for economic expansion are benefiting Canadians or whether they are benefiting other people who are taking over industry in this country.
Not very long ago certain areas in Canada were referred to as growth centres. I welcomed the report of the minister when he named the growth centres in Canada. The area of Moose Jaw, which I represent, was designated as a growth centre. I thought that many things would happen. I thought the minister and the department would study the situation and attempt to do something for these growth centres. We now know these growth centres mean very little to the minister and his department. Although they are studying certain situations in this country, they are not looking at the original intent of the legislation passed in this House. Assistance was to be given to these growth centres to enable them to catch up with other parts of Canada. The legislation now before us does little to enhance the position of the original growth centre concept which we thought would benefit Canada.
We were very pleased when the government accepted the motion for production of papers No. 224, dated March 10, 1970. A copy of the study of ways to implement mobility undertaken by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in the answer to question No. 1323 put last session, was made available. No doubt much time could be spent studying the consultants' report. The report indicated that people migrating from rural to urban areas tend to find employment lowest in status and lowest in income.
Agriculture and fishing should be treated as an industry in the concept of this bill. Too often hon. members, particularly those in the Liberal party, refer to the fact that our rural area represents only 10 per cent of the Canadian population. If the minister were really concerned, he would realize that the farming and fishing industries in Canada are still our most important industries and should be treated accordingly. Somewhere along the line the government has forgotten this fact. They have failed to realize that if we assisted the farming and fishing industries of Canada, many of today's problems would not exist. As indicated in the consultants' report, many people are forced to leave the fishing and farming industries and move to our large cities. We should be concerned about the situation in which they then find themselves. If the minister is sincere, he will try to bring about an equitable situation for all Canadians.
Under the program of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the only people able to receive assistance are those employed in the receiving centres or who have obtained employment through consultation with Manpower. Many people who move to the nearest area where work is available are not covered by the Manpower program, such as farmers, fishermen and others who are self-employed.
If the rights of everyone are to be recognized on an equitable basis, the minister and departments of government must be concerned. There must be a large mobility program. There is no cohesion among departments of government with regard to introducing a program that would be of benefit to this country. I strongly urge the minister to consult other departments of government in order to establish a comprehensive program which would be of assistance to Canada. There is no use saying that a particular area of Canada will receive special benefits if the minister is not sincere.
If we are not to have undue hardship, the Department of Labour, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and other government departments must work together to create employment. I am sure that enough has been said in this House to make the minister realize that a credible approach must be made to solve this problem. Nothing has been done which suggests that this government is credible in the eyes of the nation. The previous program of this government was not credible. With regard to what they are now proposing we must be suspicious about their attempt to have industry established in needy areas.
I urge the minister to bear in mind that farming and fishing are still the basic industries in Canada. If he does not accept that, he is dragging farmers away from their land and fishermen away from their nets. It will be a situation from which there will be no return.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Regional Development on several occasions has placed on record the position of my party. A number of hon. members have reviewed Bill C-205 in the last few hours, as well as on second reading and referral of the bill to committee on December 10. There has been a detailed explanation as to why we are unhappy with the bill. I think the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) understands my personal objections to the bill. There has been talk about the underlying principles of regional development. It has been stated that this bill applies to a short-term problem which is in direct contrast with the minister's philosophy. The minister contradicted his own position on a number of occasions by admitting that this bill will not have any effect on the problem in the area for which it was designed, even in the next six or seven months. As far as I am concerned he is admitting that this is a bad bill for Canada and at the same time it is no good for Montreal. That is the situation. It is a bad bill for Canada and it is no good for
[Mr. Skoberg.l
December 18, 1970

Montreal either. We have talked about the loans program, and we have placed before Parliament on numerous occasions and again in committee the feelings we have had about the program. We suggested major amendments to the Regional Development Incentives Act which could have made an act which is not functioning in many parts of Canada more functional. We have suggested the use of special pieces of legislation now on the books which could help with the cyclical short-term problem in Montreal, Vancouver and other parts of Canada which are suffering from a temporary setback, perhaps as a result of the general economic situation.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
We have talked about the need for more emphasis on resource incentive programs for resource development, which really means economic expansion. We have talked about the need for consultation with the provinces, with the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and with other agencies. We have talked about the absolute need for an expanding economy, and the implications of this sort of thing for the regions of Canada which suffer in terms of disparity.
I think we have presented a most reasonable approach to the basis of our objections. At least I can speak for myself, and I would not want to implicate anybody in my own thinking, but a very reasonable approach to the reasons why this bill is not functional has been put forward: it is diluting an existing program without the added advantage of assisting the area for which it was designed. I listened to the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) and to a few other members who mentioned the fact that every time we touch a piece of legislation here, no matter how logical the arguments or what the motivation, there is always a tendency, perhaps inspired, for members to try to accuse the person presenting his case of being against existing areas and regions which suffer. For this reason, I shall not make any remarks about the position which has been taken by our party, or the position which has been taken by members of the other parties in the House, because that position has been well stated for the record. It will be repeated on numerous occasions in the next six or seven months. It will be read with some interest by the premiers of the Atlantic provinces, the premier of British Columbia, the premiers of the Prairie provinces and the premiers who are concerned with regional disparity in the central Canadian provinces, that is areas outside the great urban parts of Canada. I think we will agree that the position we have taken on this bill is a logical and reasonable position.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the only thing I want to say tonight is that I have been here for two and a half years since the election in 1968, yet I have never seen a situation which is so regrettable as the one existing on December 18, 1970 at 9.05 in this House of Commons. Every member who has spoken in the last several hours has apologized for taking part in the debate. They have apologized for taking part in this particular debate which
Regional Development Incentives Act affects every region in Canada. The hon. member who preceded me made a beautiful statement. It was very brief. It lasted ten or fifteen minutes, but he did not feel like continuing. My hon. friend from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, my hon. friends from Nova Scotia, some members of the Liberal party who hardly ever speak, all apologized for taking part in the debate here at 9.10 on December 18 just before Christmas. I have been placed in the position where my rights as a Canadian, and my rights as a representative of the people, have been jeopardized because I cannot stand here this evening with the goodwill of the members of the House of Commons and do an effective job of presenting again to the Canadian people the rational reasons for objecting to this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, back in the early years of the 18th Century, Alexander Pope in "The Rape of the Lock", if I recall my poetry correctly, wrote something like this:
The hungry judges soon the sentence sign
And wretches hang that jurymen may dine
I cannot think of a phrase which better sums up the government's procedural approach to this bill. I suppose I would be a little out of order if I said that the House of Commons, by the procedure adopted by the government, has been blackmailed. We came here on December 10, and started to debate on the referral the second reading of this important bill. It has been pushed through. I cannot understand the reason for the urgency. The minister admits the bill can have no effect. Dr. Brewis of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, as well as the advisers to the minister, all said the bill could have no effect in the immediate future. It is not the sort of thing which will shake the whole economy of an area in a few weeks. Regardless of whether we should designate some of the most industrialized parts of this nation, what is the reason for trying to squeeze this through before Christmas, before we can give the premiers of the various provinces, the people of Canada and those citizens who are interested in economic development, a chance to react?
The minister knows he can squeeze his bill through when the House resumes in the early part of January. Does it not make sense that we should have allowed the bill to stand, regardless of whether we agree with it or not, until the Christmas recess is over so that we would be in a position to receive constructive reaction with regard to it? Perhaps even those who agree with it would like to hear constructive reaction to it. I do not agree with the bill. I say it is bad for the country, bad for regional development and not good for Montreal. To me, this is very suspicious. I am probably offending the delicate ears of a lot of members across the way, but this is the way I feel about it. I think we should have let this stand for a couple of weeks to allow for reaction. I do not agree with amending the act to include Montreal. We

December 18, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act should have made a special provision for Montreal and used other legislation to assist in carrying out a temporary program. I asked the minister, if he wanted to amend the act, why did he not amend it substantially so that areas which could not at present avail themselves of its provision could do so. He admitted they were conducting an investigation in one province because they did not think it was working out, and this is the sort of thing I was hoping would be done. I do not think it is consistent to designate an area that has had a temporary setback but not to designate, say, Vancouver.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
This is all I really want to say. I feel that the members of the House of Commons who want to make constructive suggestions with regard to legislation passing through this House have been placed in an awful predicament this evening, to the extent that I am unable to continue to offer detailed proposals to reinforce our arguments without feeling that I am out of order in doing so. We have not been given the chance to debate this matter in detail, and it is an issue that is fundamental and at the very root of regional development.
A lot of people are unhappy about the fact that there is in this country an increasing tendency toward government by ministerial decree. We used to take great exception to legislation by order in council. We are now getting similar powers placed in the hands of the minister. I do not distrust this minister, but perhaps one of these years he may not be in the position he is in now. This is why I think we should be given the opportunity to examine this legislation in some detail. Once the bill is passed and the legislation is in the minister's department, tied all neatly and tidily, all businesses in Canada, except perhaps for the corner store, are going to be at the mercy of the minister when it comes to questions of finance. As one hon. member said, to all intents and purposes the minister is going to be czar of economic development in this country, and perhaps this is true.
The arguments that we have presented are legitimate ones. They have been based on research done by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, especially Dr. Brewis. Contributions have been made by many premiers of the provinces, as well as one of the newly appointed finance ministers in the Atlantic provinces. Yet, this bill is being squeezed through. Hon. members are now allowing the bill to pass because they do not feel like pushing on any further.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think in all fairness the House would expect the minister to
make some statement before the House votes on third reading. There has been a very earnest and serious debate. We have had a very exhaustive study of the bill in committee. The minister has heard arguments tonight from opposition members. Under normal circumstances, we would expect the minister to make some reply to the views put forward by hon. members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Before allowing the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to make comments, if he wishes to, there should still be unanimous consent-

According to the rules of the House, after the minister moves the motion for third reading he is entitled to passage of the bill.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would be disposed to give unanimous consent to hearing the minister wish us a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, if nothing else.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think this would result in another debate which I think is not in the best interests of this House.


Gerald William Baldwin: We will take that as read.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree that the question be taken as read?


Gerald William Baldwin: I meant the minister's speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and
passed.
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy
Council): Mr. Speaker, the bill we have just passed will be going to the other place.


David Lewis: Are there enough of them still awake?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I gather there will be a wait of an hour or so before we can reassemble for royal assent, so I am wondering whether, in accordance with previous discussions, we might clear up two other items before rising until the bell summons us for royal assent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would call item No. 39.

December 18, 1970



FARM IMPROVEMENT, SMALL BUSINESSES AND FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACTS AMENDMENT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL THREE-YEAR LOAN PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson that Bill C-191, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is also the Emergency Gold
Mining Assistance Act. This bill has received study in committee and is now at the report stage. It would require consent to deal with it today, but I believe there have been consultations and that there is a desire to pass the bill tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to confirm that there have been such discussions, and if the minister would like to proceed with the bill we would give our consent.


Gerald William Baldwin: We agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to forgo the necessary notices and proceed with the study of the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) seconded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), moves that Bill C-4, an act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, as amended, be concurred in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, should the motion not be moved by a minister who is physically present?


Gerald William Baldwin: It does not make any difference really.


Hon. H. A. Olson (for Mr. Greene) moved: that Bill C-4, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, be concurred in.
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, as one representing an area which has a number of gold mines, I am pleased with the suggestions made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) about recent developments continuing emergency gold mining assistance for a 2J-year period. I am also pleased about the discussions which took place before the committee to the effect that one of the criteria for the expansion of this act beyond the 2 J-year period relates to the ability of mining companies, unions and communities in mining areas to get together and arrive at an arrangement as to the extension of these payments.
Obviously, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) will be involved in this matter as well as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and ministers of a number of other departments, including Manpower and Immigration, the minister responsible for the retraining program. One of the justifications for these payments can be related to the fact that over half the miners working in this industry are past the age at which they can be successfully retrained. I understand 45 per cent of them are over the age of 50. If we are to be successful in this venture, a number of government departments must provide assistance and leadership to communities and industry. I hope the government in its wisdom will consider the suggestion that it should hold newly-minted gold in the Canadian treasury because of the rising price of that metal.
In talking to representatives of mining companies it is interesting to note they believe that within the next five years the industrial price of gold will be higher than the minted price. If this is true, the government should take advantage of the mark-up. In the past it has been possible to gain profits by holding gold at a price of $35 per ounce and selling it when the price went up to $41 per ounce. There is an indication from the stock market that we might find ourselves in an enviable position within a two and half year period in respect of gold. We may be able to recover much of our loss if the government has the foresight to hold newly minted gold at $35 per ounce and sell it to the United States market at the increased price.
This is probably the fifth time I have participated in a debate on the extension of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. We have never been able to remove the word "emergency" but it is interesting to note that we have been able to reduce the number of mines requiring

December 18, 1970
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act assistance under this act from approximately 100 to about 18 or 19, or even fewer as projected for 1973.
We have not been successful in solving the problems facing our mining communities. We have been able to do something about the industry. Obviously, these community problems will be solved by the natural course of events. The government has conducted interdepartmental studies. Representatives of mining companies have participated in these studies. I understand they were very frank in making disclosures regarding reserves. The communities have been very frank in respect of capital expenditures and potential development. The government should give leadership to these communities.
It is unfortunate the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) is not here to speak for his riding. His riding and the riding of Timiskaming, which includes Timmins and Kirkland Lake, have developed with the support of the gold mining industry. Considerable capital investment is involved there and this capital investment could be of great value to other industries which might be established in these areas. These communities have been unable to offer industrial incentives required to attract new industry. I hope the government will accept the responsibility of finding ways to attract this industry so that after the 2J-year period we will be able to look back and say that these years were productive. I express the hope that we will not have to ask for an extension of the act after this period but will have a measure of much more permanent nature.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest now we move to the next stage of our proceedings. I should like, first of all, to thank my colleagues-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is the minister speaking on this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I understood the bill had received third reading, but apparently I was wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Does the House agree to third reading of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, before we move to the next stage of our proceedings I wish to take the opportunity-this may be my last opportunity before the recess-to thank opposition House leaders, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) for the co-operation they have extended during this part of the session. We are ending the session in an atmosphere free of confrontation. The progress we have made this week in our legislative program is the result of the co-operative and conslutative atmosphere which has prevailed in our relationships. I am very grateful for that. I should like, also, to extend to hon. members my best wishes for a Merry Christmas as they leave for what I hope will be a pleasant respite from their labours. They well deserve this period of rest until January 11.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, in the festive spirit I should like briefly to acknowledge the fact that a new chief government whip has been appointed. I am sure all members wish him every success in his endeavour to bring peace and good will to this House of Commons.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I suggest we might rise until the call of the bell.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps it might be agreeable to hon. members, since we are to rise until called back by the bell, to join the Speaker and the officers of the House as well as some of our distinguished colleagues from the Press Gallery, in Room 16 to fraternize in the true spirit of Christmas.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 9.35 p.m. the sitting was suspended.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald Fauteux, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today at 11.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Louis-Fremont Trudeau,
Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major Guay Vandelac, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (11:40 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General has been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1971.

December 18, 1970

An Act to amend the Anti-dumping Act
An Act to establish the Tax Review Board to make certain amendments to other Acts in relation thereto An Act respecting grain An Act respecting cooperative associations An Act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company
An Act to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act and to amend an Act to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act
An Act to amend the Old Age Secuirty Act
An Act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members leave the House of Commons for a well deserved and richly earned holiday, may I, in the name of my wife and personally, wish you
Royal Assent
all a very Merry Christmas with your families and wish you a happy healthy and prosperous New Year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) seconded by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle), moves that this House do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At 11.49 p.m. the House adjourned, pursuant to Special Order, until two o'clock on Monday, January 11, 1971.
[Stage Direction]
December 18, 1970


[Stage Direction]
With the adoption of the amendments to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act earlier this year Parliament laid the foundation for the establishment of exclusive Canadian fishing zones comprising certain areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada. As explained to the House on April 17, these provisions were enabling only and the creation of the new zones required executive action by way of an Order in Council. The required action is now being taken to draw "fisheries closing lines" across the entrances to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy, Queen Charlotte Sound and Dixon Entrance-Hecate Strait. A Government Notice to this effect will be published in the Canada Gazette on December 26. The fisheries closing lines will then be brought into force immediately upon the expiration of the mandatory 60-day waiting period imposed by the amended Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.
There are special geographic and legal factors pertaining to the areas affected by the Government's action, and Canada has historic and other claims to these areas. The establishment of exclusive fishing zones in the bodies of water under reference, as has been made clear on previous occasions, can in no way be construed as an abandonment of those claims by Canada. It is also well known that the new fishing zones we are creating are of vital importance to Canadian fishing interests. The Gulf of St. Lawrence alone has had landings of up to 550 million pounds valued at some $31 million, the Bay of Fundy's landings of 300 million pounds are worth $12 million, while the Pacific coast area contained within Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound has landings of 180 million pounds, worth $37 million a year.
These are, of course, important considerations, but the Government objectives in introducing this imaginative concept of fisheries closing lines go beyond the securing of immediate economic benefits, as was outlined by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his statement to the House of April 17. On that occasion, he pointed out that:
"Now that the world is becoming aware that living resources are not infinitely renewable and that they can indeed be exhausted or depleted by overexploitation or wiped out by means of pollution of the sea, it is vitally necessary to apply to the exploitation of these resources some of the techniques which have been developed for offshore mineral resources. The action now being taken by Canada is a step in this direction, a step toward a more logical and systematic approach to the management of living marine resources.
Exclusive rights to harvest may be necessary, but they are not an end in themselves. The end we have in mind is conservation and rational management, and for this
purpose we require jurisdiction. That jurisdiction, however, does not rule out the possibility of sharing fisheries exploitation with other countries; it does, however, allow us to set rules for that exploitation, to impose licensing requirements if necessary and thus to share the financial burden of conservation as well as the financial rewards of exploitation."
The fisheries closing lines being promulgated by the Government represent a very important step forward in the conservation and protection of Canada's coastal fisheries. It must be recognized, however, that there is also a need for international as well as national action if we are to preserve the marine environment and its living resources for future generations. For this reason the Government has been consulting with other interested countries for more than two years with respect to the convening of a Law of the Sea conference which would deal effectively with these problems.
The possibility of convening such a conference has been under discussion in the current session of the United Nations General Assembly and the Assembly has now resolved that a conference should be held in 1973. It is Canada's hope that there will emerge from that conference a rational system of fisheries conservation, management and exploitation in the common interest of all countries, including a clear recognition of the special rights and responsibilities of coastal states with respect to the living resources of the sea, and particularly the protection of the Atlantic and Pacific salmon stocks which are being maintained at considerable cost by the efforts of coastal states such as Canada and the USA.
In addition, it is Canada's view that the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment to be convened in Stockholm in June of 1972 will offer an important and indeed crucial opportunity for the international community to adopt a bold and constructive approach to the preservation of the marine environment. The living resources of the sea are the greatest wealth of the sea, and it is those resources, of course, which are most directly threatened by marine pollution. The Stockholm Conference, we hope, will include among its achievements the laying of a foundation for a global attack on marine pollution, including the work on this problem which we hope will be undertaken at the proposed conference on the Law of the Sea.
Having established the new fishing zones, the Government intends to conclude negotiations for the phasing out of the fishing activities of certain countries which have traditionally fished in the areas concerned, namely the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Spain. Canada has recently entered into an agreement on reciprocal fishing privileges with the
December 18, 1970
[Stage Direction]
U.S.A. and the activities of United States fishermen in the areas concerned will not be affected by the promulgation of our fisheries closing lines. There are as well other treaty arrangements with the United States and also France off Canada's east coast, and similarly the rights accruing under these treaties will be respected.
There may be differences of views as to whether or not a phasing-out period should be granted for countries which have carried on traditional fishing practices in areas over which a coastal state has established fisheries
jurisdiction, as we are now doing in Canada's special bodies of water. There can, however, be no such differences of views with respect to areas which have become part of Canada's 12-mile territorial sea.
The extension of Canada's territorial sea to 12 miles and the establishment of exclusive Canadian fishing zones in the special bodies of water will permit us to conclude expeditiously the negotiations begun in 1964 following the passage of the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act.