1970-12-10

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-8, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in light of recent disclosures I ask leave, pursuant to Standing Order 43, to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That this House is of the opinion that the special tax concessions made available to Time magazine and Reader's Digest are not in the best interest of Canada and should forthwith be discontinued.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity, so the motion cannot be put at this time.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to present to the House a petition, which is a privilege granted hon. members under Standing Order 67. I should like to file this petition to the House of Commons with the Clerk of the House.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 LABOUR CONDITIONS INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 to discuss a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the joint release this morning by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Manpower and Immigration on employment and unemployment in the Canadian labour force showing that the reduction in the employment of 14 to 24 years olds between October and November was higher than the average for this period in the last five years, representing an increase of 64,000 young people compared with a year earlier. The release also showed a rise in the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in this group from 10J per cent to 11 per cent between June of this year and last month, with an increase of 43 per cent over the last full year and with particular effect on the Atlantic provinces.
I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell), that the House adjourn to discuss this urgent matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has given the required notice of his intention to move the motion to which he has just alluded. As the House knows, similar motions have been proposed from time to time following the publication of DBS monthly reports. The rulings of the Chair have consistently indicated that Standing Order 26 is not applicable in such circumstances.
I should add that since the House still has before it consideration of the budget, including an amendment on the subject of unemployment, I must rule that it would not be in order to initiate a new discussion at this time under Standing Order 26.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime

December 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister or to the Minister of Labour in respect of the subject raised by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. The question relates to the reported alarming increase of some 40 per cent over last year in unemployment among those between the ages of 14 and 24. Can the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour give the House any information as to the distribution of this unemployment among youth across the country? To what extent is it concentrated in specific regions such as urban communities or in the countryside? I ask this question because I assume that since this has been a continuing development over a number of months this matter has been under investigation.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the appropriate minister to whom this question should be addressed is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I have not conducted a personal, detailed study of this matter. The only thing I have noticed is that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure has dropped for the third or fourth consecutive month.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister or anyone else in the government whether, in view of this very alarming trend over a number of months, any study of the distribution of unemployment in this age bracket has been ordered? Perhaps even more important, has the government ordered any study as to the reason, if any, for this alarming increase in unemployment among Canadian youth which must be a source of great concern to the government as well as to us?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, a regional breakdown in respect of particular groups may not be available in part because the size of the survey in regard to a particular group may not in itself be sufficient to justify any particular conclusion. The information available, however, is that the explanation for the greater number of unemployed in the age group to which reference has been made is that in some measure it is due to the unusually small decline in the size of the group seeking employment rather than in the amount of employment available.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, if the minister considers that an explanation, I think the Prime Minister had better redistribute the responsibilities of the government. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of this obvious lack of information on the part of his colleagues in respect of this important subject, he will direct that an inquiry be made into this matter? Will he also report at a very early date, before the Christmas recess, what measures the government proposes to take directly related to this alarming increase in unemployment among Canadian youth?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in very recent days the Minister of Finance has indicated what we are doing about employment, and debate has gone on in the House on that subject. I think opposition speakers realized, as indicated in their contributions to that debate, that it was difficult to stimulate the economy and say that such stimulation should only profit a certain age group.



UNEMPLOYMENT-MANPOWER DEPARTMENT FORECAST

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Mr. Douglas D. Peters, chief economist for the Toronto-Dominion Bank, speaking at the Toronto School of Business, estimated that the unemployment figure for 1971 will not be less than 6 per cent, the figure which has obtained in 1970. May I ask the minister whether he is prepared to table the forecast which his department has made as to the unemployment figures for the coming months and, if possible, for the entire 1971 period?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will be glad to look once again at the question of whether the available statistical analysis would be helpful. If it seems that it might be I will look at the question of making it available.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the figures just released this morning show that there were 476,000 unemployed in November, which is 57,000 greater than the previous month and
122,000	higher than November, 1969, can the minister tell us whether the forecast of his department indicates that this figure is likely to decline or increase over the coming months?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is quite aware of the seasonal factors which normally affect unemployment from time to time. Of course the figures he quotes are accurate but they tend to ignore the fact that the seasonally adjusted rate has in fact dropped in the past month from the previous month. The difficulty in being more precise about the analyses we may have available is that hon. members opposite are apt to proclaim them to the country as targets rather than anything else if they were made available. It is our objective, of course, through our many policies to bring the figure of unemployment down as far as possible.



REDUCTION OF PERIOD IN LABOUR FORCE TO QUALIFY FOR MANPOWER TRAINING AND ALLOWANCES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact that the unemployment among youth, those under 25 years of age, is now some 212,000 or about 45 per cent of the unemployed, would the minister consider reducing the period of time during which an individual must be in the labour force in order to qualify for manpower training and allowances?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this question has in fact been under constant consideration with the provincial ministers and other interested persons. It is, of course, a ques-

December 10, 1970

tion of priority in respect of the training moneys presently available, and the original philosophy was to direct these moneys to those in the labour force for a longer period of time as well as those who have been unemployed. I think there is a lot to be said for that basic philosophy. Certainly the question of adjusting priorities is under constant review.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, in order to try to help the minister clarify his explanation of why unemployment has increased in Canada, is the essence of what he was laboriously trying to explain to the House simply that the reason unemployment has increased is that there are not so many people working in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East.



INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE-SPECIAL MANPOWER UPGRADING PROGRAM

Mr. James A. McGraih (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the alarmingly high rate of unemployment among younger people, is the minister now prepared to undertake a study of the unemployment in this age group to see if a special manpower upgrading program is warranted?


Otto Emil Lang: The question of the availability of training programs for this age group as well as for others is indeed under constant consideration. Many of the people in this age group, of course, are able to take advantage of these programs although, with the rule about having been in the labour force for a certain period of time, a certain portion of that group is not eligible under the present law.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister with regard to the 60,000 extra unemployed. In view of the fact that the Christmas season is under way, would the Prime Minister bring joy to the hearts of the Canadian people by removing the Minister of Finance from office and adopting some of our suggestions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration-the Minister of Labour could also take note of the question-whether he would consider making available to the House the significant information which I understand is accumulated in his department, and perhaps also in the Department of Labour, indicating how serious the unemployment predictions are, so that we could make suggestions and offer proposals in order to help alleviate the problem among young people especially?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: I think that is the same question as was asked a moment ago and which I answered at that time.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is not responding to the questions. Also, he is certainly misleading the House with his use or misuse of statistics in that he continually compares the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for one month with the previous month. The only statistic that should be used-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that that is not really a point of order but a debate between the minister and the hon. member. If he has a supplementary question, I would be glad to recognize him.


John Howard Lundrigan: It is no good asking supplementary questions if this kind of misinformation is going to be given by the minister.



INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE-REPAYMENT OF STUDENT LOANS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to direct this question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Labour. It concerns those who had student loans from universities and have not had a job in six months or have just become employed. Would the government be prepared to extend the time of repayment to one year or more so as to give the students a better opportunity to repay the loans? That is a practical suggestion.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question of student loans is administered by the Minister of Finance, and I am sure that if the suggestion is practical he will consider it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you not think it is practical?



REDUCTION OF PERIOD IN LABOUR FORCE TO QUALIFY FOR MANPOWER TRAINING AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. David Lewis (York Souih):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of an answer he gave to the question asked by my leader. He said that the problem of reducing the number of years required before one can obtain an allowance as well as the right to training is under constant consideration. I should like to ask the minister whether, before we adjourn for the Christmas recess, he will make a statement to the House as to the result of that constant review and whether he will take steps immediately to change that regulation?


Otto Emil Lang: I am not optimistic about being able to make any statement prior to the adjournment of the House. However, when a decision has been taken which would indicate any change then of course an announcement would be made.

December 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the minister know what percentage of these 14 to 24 year olds require retraining to have a reasonable expectation of being incorporated into the work force?


Otto Emil Lang: It is difficult to say who requires retraining. The usual question is whether they can take advantage of or benefit from retraining in order to have greater variety or a better type of position offered to them. This is the object of the retraining programs, and of course this is why it is essentially offered to those who have been in the labour force and not simply to those who are at school or who have regular or other schooling available to them.


David Lewis: Perhaps I may address this supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that many of these young unemployed people are obviously not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits and are not entitled to allowances if they try to get some training under a program and therefore have to depend on welfare, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government would consider immediately either changing the requirement of three years before being able to obtain an allowance during training or discussing with the provincial ministers of welfare some kind of expansion of eligibility for social welfare to which the Canada Assistance Plan would apply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot say that those particular remedies would be the ones that we would consider but the problem is being considered and when we do make any policy changes we will announce them. They may include the suggestions of the hon. member, but they may not.


Mr. Speaker:: There is obviously a number of further supplementary questions. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and then go on to the hon. member for Shefford who has been waiting patiently for an opportunity to ask the first question on behalf of his party.



INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE-SPECIAL MILITIA TRAINING PROGRAMS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would he now consider more seriously the proposals I placed before the Minister of National Defence to introduce special militia training programs for youth?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of National Defence heard the hon. member's representations.



ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMON MARKET WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for noticing how patient I have been.
Since the Prime Minister is supposed to have said in St. John, New Brunswick, on December 8, that the United States will be a net importer of commodities within 10 years, does he not believe that it would be beneficial for Canada to establish a common market with that country?


David Lewis: I hope not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this consequence can be implied from those premises. The problem of the establishment of a common or continental market has already been discussed in the House. Hon. members know that the government has concluded in certain fields, in the automobile sector for instance, agreements quite profitable for all parties concerned. If other similar cases occurred, we would gladly consider them, but I do not think that it would be advisable at this stage to speak about a complete common market between the two countries. It would not be beneficial for Canada.
It is perhaps a matter that could be considered in the distant future.



DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. MARKETS FOR ATLANTIC PROVINCES' PRODUCTS

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesler North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is he in a position to outline any special action that will be undertaken by the government to assist in the development of new markets for Atlantic provinces' industries in the United States, as a result of the speech he made in Saint John this week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course,
Mr. Speaker, the services of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are always available to explore new markets and to help Canadian industry take greater advantage of them. No one is more aware of the situation than the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce consider setting up a special seminar-type conference between industry, businessmen and political leaders in the Atlantic provinces to see if there might be some special type of assistance the department could give to the development of new markets in the area that the Prime Minister pointed out might be advantageous to industry in the Atlantic provinces?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject which is being looked at at the moment, but I might underline the fact that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has just opened an office in Fredericton, New Brunswick. I might also say that the Premier of Prince Edward Island was here last week with his Minister of Labour,

December 10, 1970

Industry and Commerce, and there was an exchange of views with my department, on the external trade situation in Prince Edward Island.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if he would consider for the Atlantic provinces the type of undertaking that a former minister of trade and commerce undertook for all businessmen in order to develop new markets in foreign countries, especially in the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I might look at it with suspicion now that I know the origin of that idea.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I resent that, but I would be glad to tell the minister how to do it. It may take a while but I will tell him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POSSIBLE SALE OF ELECTRICITY TO UNITED STATES THROUGH DEVELOPMENT OF FUNDY TIDAL POWER

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister following the question asked by the hon. member for Cumber-land-Colchester North. Would the Prime Minister and the government now reconsider the decision they have made on the Bay of Fundy tidal power project in order to provide badly needed electrical energy to the eastern seaboard of the United States, which would be an excellent export from the Atlantic area to the United States?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice if he would be prepared to table the report of the board of inquiry into the escapes from the Saskatchewan penitentiary at Prince Albert. Is he now in a position to reply favourably to that request?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: I have looked into that, Mr. Speaker. It has been brought to my attention that these reports have always been considered to be confidential and for purposes related to the internal management of penitentiaries, and so I decline to table the report.


Frank Howard: Is the minister aware that the board of inquiry report into the riot at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in the mid-1950s was made public and tabled in the House? May I ask the minister whether, if he is not prepared to table the report of the board of inquiry into the escapes, he will at least table the report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police inquiry under
Inquiries of the Ministry
Inspector Mosher, which was highly critical of the
warden of the penitentiary?
# * *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
With regard to the international implications of the terrorism that occurred in Quebec, is the minister in a position to state that foreign governments were not involved in the troubles of the last months?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen no evidence whatever that foreign governments are involved.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question for the hon. Minister of Justice in his capacity as Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the House how many members of the FLQ who have been apprehended and questioned were trained for their activities in foreign countries such as Jordan, Algeria or Cuba?


John Napier Turner: No, I
could not, Mr. Speaker.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the minister undertake to obtain this information from the RCMP and perhaps communicate it not only to the House but to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, also based on his forecast in his recent Saint John speech about unprecedented opportunities for Maritime provinces' products in the eastern United States. With a view to furthering this desirable goal, can the Prime Minister advise if he and his government will contribute toward the rapid and efficient transport of such goods by reconsidering the decision to abandon the PE.I. causeway and by reappraising its contribution toward the cost of construction of the corridor road?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that this speech in New Brunswick

December 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
was read so attentively by members of the opposition. If the hon. member would read further in the speech he would see that I talked about the problem of transportation in the Maritimes, though not that particular aspect.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It was a most sensitive and sensible speech but I wonder if the Prime Minister would consult with the Premier of Prince Edward Island and reopen that most important subject? That would make a good second chapter.



Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Has Canada a representative directly attached to the United Kingdom delegation which is negotiating the terms of Great Britain's entry into the European Common Market?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, but we have representatives accredited to the European Economic Community and to the United Kingdom. Between these two I think we do quite well.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If you do it like everything else it will be a failure.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the General Investment Corporation has announced the sale of one of its subsidiaries, namely Sogefor Limited, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to purchase it, or whether he will announce that steps will be taken to ensure that a typically Canadian company does not fall into foreign hands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to send me word, a few minutes ago, that he would put that question to me. Unfortunately, I have not yet had time to find the components of an answer. I shall merely say that this is the first time I have heard of this sale, but it would seem that if the General Investment Corporation wishes to sell its subsidiary, there is no reason at first glance why the Canadian government should buy it.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that one Montreal child died this year and another suffered serious lead poisoning by drinking from a handmade earthenware jug, and in view of the further fact that the United States has now banned some s'milar Canadian and Mexican products as being too dangerous, will the minister take action for the immediate removal of such products from store shelves in order to avoid possible Christmas tragedies?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have been working on the development of a standard for the lead glazing of pottery in order to avoid a recurrence of the trag c event in Montreal a year ago and we expect to announce regulations in due course. If the hon. member has evidence of certain pottery items available now having a high lead content in the glaze, I hope she will bring it to my attention so that proper and speedy action may be taken if required.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if the fact that such Canadian products are banned in the United States is not sufficient evidence to take action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is argumentative.
* [DOT] *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government of Canada taken a position with respect to the treaty just signed between Poland
and West Germany?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This will be a good answer-he has it written out.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we welcome this treaty-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. members opposite will agree that this is an important question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Donald MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Questions in this House are supposed to be of


December 10, 1970

urgent and pressing necessity before they are permitted. This question has no urgency whatsoever as the Canadian people know that this treaty was signed a few days ago. The fact that it has been brought up now does not qualify it as an urgent question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member and to all hon. members that it is for the Chair to determine what is a matter of urgency. After the question period the conclusion of the Chair from day to day is that many questions are asked and allowed that hardly qualify under the criterion suggested by the hon. member. In view of the circumstances I think the question asked by the hon. member is in order.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would point out for the
benefit of hon. members opposite that this is the first time a question has been asked about Canada's attitude toward this treaty. It should have been asked by the opposition but apparently they are not alive to the importance of this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It would not have been allowed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Canada welcomes this treaty and its attendant documents, including the provisions dealing with Poland's western boundary. We admire the courage and the realism that the federal government of Germany has shown-


An hon. Member:: Hallelujah!


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister. It is obvious from his reply that what he wants to do is make a statement to the House, but the minister can only do this by way of a statement on motions. I would suggest to him that he should not give the information by way of a statement at this time.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, when a question is asked by a Member of Parliament on a matter that he considers urgent and that I agree is urgent, I think it is important that he should have an answer from me. I do not want to make any statement in the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Make it on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the minister kindly resume his seat? The question was asked and the minister replied, albeit briefly. I doubt that the statement he was about to make should be made by way of a reply to a question. With respect, I suggest to him that this should be the position in connection with the procedural aspect of the matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Baldwin:: Put it to music and sing it at the Christmas party.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In order to hasten immigration appeals and to reassure the public, has the minister decided to set up a security review board to screen and deal with immigration security cases, as recommended by the latest Sedgwick report and the Royal Commission on Security?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a question put that broadly goes beyond the scope of my department. Certainly we are
considering the whole question of appeal procedures following upon the Sedgwick report and other considera-t ons in this issue. These will include a consideration of the best method of handling security cases as well as the best ways of handling all the other problems involved in the matter generally.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Is the minister recommending to cabinet that such a board should be set up?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is in the wrong place to be told that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: Shame! There you have the same old bunch.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilberl (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of housing. In v.ew of the recent discussions he has had with representatives of pension funds and in view of his statement that there will be an ant cipated short-fall of mortgage moneys from conventional sources, would the minister make a statement on motions before the Christmas recess setting forth the financial requirements and the targets that we expect our financial institutions to meet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon.
member that the question is in order only to the extent that the hon. member is asking the minister whether a statement will be made or not.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will not be in a position to make a statement as all-embracing as that being asked for by the hon. member before we rise for the Christmas recess. I will make the pertinent information known to all members as soon as that is reasonably possible.

December 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



POLICY RESPECTING ISSUANCE OF PASSPORTS TO KIDNAPPERS OF JAMES CROSS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who has made a great to-do about people being awake today. Has he yet been briefed about the matter of the issuance of passports to the terrorists who went to Cuba, and is he now in a position to say what the policy of his department is in this regard?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition is asking me to make a statement. This seems to have been ruled out of order.


George Harris Hees: Just answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask Your Honour to rule whether the question is in order.


Mr. Speaker;: The Leader of the Opposition is being very helpful. I thank him. I shall deliver solemn judgment. The first part of the question was in order, but not the second part.


George Harris Hees: Let us have an answer to the first part.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to answer the first part of the question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would rephrase his question so I can answer it accurately.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister whether he will tell the House what the position of his department is with regard to the issuance upon request
of passports to the terrorists?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If we are going to be technical about this matter I suggest to the minister and to the Leader of the Opposition that the question would be in order if it dealt with the current situation. It is certainly not in order to invite the minister to make a statement which is normally made on motions. If the minister would like to reply to the first part of the question, as I suggested a moment ago, that would be quite in order.


Donald MacInnis: Come on; let's have an answer.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was quite serious in my answer to the Leader of the Opposition. It would take me some minutes to explain the position and therefore I suggest it would be better if the answer could be given as a statement.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why not revert to motions?
[Mr. Andras.)



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON TREATY BETWEEN WEST GERMANY AND POLAND

Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my question is in order but I am also interested in knowing what the Canadian government's attitude is with regard to the treaty concluded by West Germany and Poland.
You have decided, Mr. Speaker, that we should revert to motions in order to allow the minister to make a statement. Could we not ask for unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions in order to allow the minister to deliver his statement? Otherwise, would the minister be prepared to make his statement on this important treaty tomorrow on motions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I could answer this question very shortly and much more quickly than I could the question put by the Leader of the Opposition.


An hon. Member:: The minister is wasting the time of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The question, as 1 understood it, is whether the minister would like to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement or whether he will ask permission to make a statement tomorrow on motions.


George Harris Hees: What is the minister going to do?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I have unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Miichell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we admire the courage and the realism that the Federal Republic of Germany has shown, as a part of its eastern policy, in negotiating this difficult treaty, which follows the one signed with the Soviet Union on August 12. We also commend Poland for its part in contributing, together with the Federal Republic of Germany, to a relaxation of tensions in Europe.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the Secretary of State
December 10, 1970

for External Affairs for his courageous and forward-looking statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for York South rising for the purpose of addressing himself to the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


David Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to say first that if the Secretary of State for External Affairs felt, as he should have felt, that the subject required a statement by him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member does not have the floor for the purpose of entering into debate on what appears to be a point of order raised by a number of hon. members a moment ago. He should limit his comments to the substance of the statement made by the minister.


David Lewis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I thought I was doing, in my own mind at least. I say that if the subject matter in the minister's mind deserved a statement to this House, it ought to have been made at a time when it would not evoke the kind of laughter and hilarity we have witnessed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why did hon. members give their unanimous consent, then?


David Lewis: We are delighted that the Polish government and the Federal Republic of Germany have entered into this treaty. It is significant that Mr. Brant has pursued this kind of policy of trying to ease tensions between West Germany and the countries of eastern Europe ever since he took office.


Mitchell William Sharp: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I say that that should have led the minister representing this country as well as ministers representing other countries at the NATO discussions to take further steps which ought logically to follow this treaty between West Germany and Poland.


Mitchell William Sharp: We did.


David Lewis: They ought to try to solve the problem of a general German treaty, the problem of Berlin, and the other problem which still threatens the peace in Europe. It is not enough for the minister to welcome a step that has already been taken. I say to him in all earnestness that this is merely one little step taken by the two governments concerned, and that there will not be a settlement of the problem in Europe until he and other representatives of other governments are prepared to agree to some kind of security conference or other conference leading to final settlement and a peace treaty between Germany and the other nations involved in the last war.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr.   Gaefan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, I have a very urgent question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In his absence may I direct it to the acting minister. Following the derailment of sulphuric acid tank cars which were part of a CPR train near Sudbury and the spilling of sulphuric acid into the Pickerel River, can the minister advise the House if proper anti-pollution precautions have been taken or will be taken?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the latest information received is that nearly all of the 93 per cent H.SO(, sulphuric acid, estimated at 1,300 tons contained in the tank cars, has escaped. A large amount of the acid is reported as lying on the ground and has not yet reached the river. Seventy-five tons of lime have been transported from Sudbury, and is now being spread over the spilled acid. More lime is coming from Toronto and is expected on site this evening. The OWRC have an engineer on the site supervising the operations. The Department of Lands and Forests has an aircraft and a biological crew at the site looking for signs of fish mortality and other biological damage.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the controversy surrounding the fishing boundaries and limits around the French-owned islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, would the minister make an early statement in the House on what progress was made in connection with this matter during his talks while he was in Europe recently attending NATO ministerial meetings?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this subject did not arise in the conversations I had while in Europe.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Bearing in mind the strong views
expressed at the United Nations by Mr. J. A. Beasley, head of the legal division of the Department of External Affairs, concerning the desirability of a new law of the sea covering territorial limits, exploitation, pollution and conservation, would the minister indicate whether any progress has been made toward convening an international conference to deal with these matters and, if so, where and when will such a conference be held?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to take notice of that question.
I think the general answer is that progress is being made, but I will ascertain the extent of that progress.

December 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the importance of continuing discussions with France in connection with treaty rights off our east coast, especially in terms of implementing our pollution legislation, may I ask whether talks aimed at reaching a satisfactory settlement of this treaty which we inherited from Great Britain are still going on with the French government? If not, why not?


Mitchell William Sharp: The subject matter is still the subject of discussions between the two governments. There have not recently been any discussions on the subject, however.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is still a matter of discussion but there are no discussions.


Mr. Barry Malher (Surrey):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is related to the question which was asked by the hon. member for Victoria the other day. Having in mind the announced intention of the United States to proceed with a further massive nuclear test in the Aleutian area next fall and the increasing concern over this proposal in Alaska and British Columbia, will the minister check on this situation, particularly the reported danger of radioactive hydrogen leaking into the Pacific and contaminating its waters?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation to the minister and he has to assume it will be taken into consideration by him.



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilion West):: My question is addressed to the minister responsible for housing and it is supplemental to that asked by the hon. member for Broadview. In view of the minister's willingness to participate in the setting up of some form of central mortgage bank, as recommended by the task force on housing and urban affairs, which would be a base for new mortgage institutions and would lead to further liquidity, is it the hon. gentleman's intention to lay before this House legislation leading to the creation of such a central mortgage bank?


Robert Knight Andras: We held an exploratory discussion in September with the approved lenders and again, the other day, with the trusteed pension fund representatives, during which this suggestion was considered as a possible way to provide increased marketability for mortgages. It was not announced as government policy but it is an interesting proposition which we shall be exploring in more detail, and if the indications are that we should make this recommendation I will say so to my colleagues and, if accepted, naturally we would bring the matter before Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with
all due respect and all possible deference, I hope that we on the backbenches do not escape your eye. We are very patiently expecting some recognition, and in view of the fact that I have only had an opportunity to ask a couple of questions this week I hope Your Honour will give me a chance to ask a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member might be interested to know that the question period had already expired when I recognized him and, later, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. I think this is showing some forbearance and co-operation.



PROPOSED RECEIPTS CHECK-OFF TO FINANCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mouniain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received an urgent request from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asking that the new Canada Grain Act include a provision for a check-off on grain receipts to assist in financing research and development as part of a national effort in this field?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Rod Thomson (Batlleford-Kindersley):: I wish to address my question to the Secretary of State. In view of the CBC and CTV practice of editing the national news on a budget basis from such places as Vancouver and Halifax when such is not done in the case of news stories from Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa, will the minister use his office to discourage this practice of discrimination against some parts of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that he is making a representation to the government; he has to assume it will be taken into account. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-202, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second

December 10, 1970
[Stage Direction]
time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Services.
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday afternoon, I was in the process of urging the government to reconsider the legislation now before us and to bring forward a better bill for the elderly people of this country. I was suggesting that the government ought to be concerned about the process of alienation, to which attention has been drawn on a number of occasions by many speakers both inside and outside this House, and saying that feelings of alienation arose, too, among the old people of this country, the retired people. Unless there is a change of heart on the part of the government, the measure now before us will be greeted by many of the retired people in Canada with scepticism and cynicism.
The bill we are now being asked to pass must, in my opinion, be related to the over-all economic situation in Canada. I do not intend to get into a general discussion of this subject, but I feel there are some relevant points which must be considered in the context of the legislation before us. In many respects it appears the government is acting on the basis of iis policy to date, that is its unwillingness to tell the private sector, the corporate sector of the economy, that any action will be taken against it. For some time now, the government has been concerned about inflation and has geared its policies to an anti-inflation approach. Hon. members opposite say, now, that inflation has been slowed down; the government feels it has the situation under control. But they are worrying about a new wave of inflation which may arise in the future and, at the same time, they are bound to consider the high unemployment levels which exist in this country. We hear comments about what is likely to happen during the next round, the next cycle in our economic affairs. We are on a sort of merry-go-round; we are going through the same boom and bust cycle as before. Indications are that the variations in the performance of the economy are becoming greater with each cycle. Each of these variations is tied to the structure of the economy and to government policies in relation to the economy.
I do not wish to discuss this subject in detail, but I feel obliged to mention certain aspects of it; the fact is that the government, given the set of assumptions on which it has been working, has failed to control the course of economic affairs satisfactorily. I grant that hon. members opposite would like to be able to influence the course of economic affairs, to bring them under some control and make them subject to a degree of stability. But they have not found the means of doing so up to the present time, given the assumptions on which the government is working.
I was pleased to note that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey, speaking in another debate in this House this week, did indicate that it might be necessary for the government to move to implement some form of selective control when dealing with the next cycle in our economic affairs. But regardless of what happens, of how success-
Old Age Security
ful or unsuccessful we are in controlling some of the economic forces in Canada, we must protect those who have been economically hurt; and the number one group of people who must be protected and helped is those on fixed and low incomes. The first group of people in this bracket is the old age pensioners of Canada.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
This was pointed out by members of this party in a minority report submitted last February to the House of Commons by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs dealing with interest rates and the whole problem of inflation. We disagreed with some of the basic premises of the majority report of the committee and suggested that, as a basic starting point, we had to develop long term policies to deal with the problems of income distribution. One of the recommendations of this minority report was that to achieve the objectives of an equitable distribution of income, and an equitable distribution of the economic burden of rising prices, a comprehensive incomes policy should be adopted. Then, we went on to explain in these words:
It is essential that what we mean by an incomes policy be well understood. To be meaningful, it must be comprehensive, it must include all forms of income. In addition to wages and salaries (the salaries of members of parliament included) all forms of non-wage and non-salary income-including profits, rents, interest, professional fees and unincorporated business income must be subject to the policy.
The Comprehensive Incomes Policy must include the provision of a guaranteed annual income, to avoid injustice and hardship. It must be flexible enough to take account of (1) the plight of low paid workers (2) disparities within industries and classes of employees (3) increases in the cost of living and (4) other factors causing disadvantage to groups or regions.
We put forward this proposal in terms of its being a long-term policy approach, recognizing that there are problems in implementing such a policy and that this would take time. Thus, we suggested there should also be short run measures to deal with some of the immediate problems that face the Canadian people. The number one item in the list presented in our report, submitted on behalf of the members of this party by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) and myself, was that we should immediately compensate the victims of inflation by ensuring that welfare benefits rise at least as fast as the cost of living index. We suggested this should be done in this way:

by abolishing the ceiling of two per cent per annum which the Liberal government has imposed on the rise in old age pensions and benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.
-by regular increases in the minimum wage and farm and other primary support prices.
-by requiring private pension plans to be based on best years' earning with a cost of living escalator.
This recommendation does not assume that existing levels of pensions are adequate. An essential first step is to bring them up to the level necessary to meet the cost of living today.
I suggest that if the government had given more consideration to these recommendations instead of the recommendations submitted by its back bench members, it would have been in a much better position today than it is.

December 10, 1970
Old Age Security
In taking a look at old age pension legislation and the manner in which we treat the elderly people of this country, I think we must bear in mind the changes that are taking place in society. Basic changes have been made, and changes are continuing to be made, in the structure of the family, indeed in the entire structure of society. No longer is it the case that the grandfather and the grandmother live with some member of the family; very often they live on their own, and for many reasons. They try to maintain an independent existence.
This is one of the facts of society today. Since forces in present day society have brought about this changed approach to life, we must ensure that our institutions and policies are geared to taking account of the situation and the problems that inevitably arise. Basically we must keep faith with the elderly people of this country. As I have already indicated, we must become concerned with the process of alienation that affects so much of our society and is causing much of the malaise that exists today.
It has often been said that a society is judged on the basis of the way it treats its young, its sick and its aged. I suggest that as far as the latter group of people is concerned, the people of Canada will not judge the government well in terms of the policies it is introducing on their behalf.
I know that many government members contend that we cannot afford to pay more money. They ask where we are going to get the required amount of money from. This is what we have been hearing, of course, over the years when discussing every progressive welfare measure that has been proposed in Canada. I say that we cannot afford not to introduce a better measure for the aged people of Canada. I say that an obligation exists in this regard, and that we must ensure the future welfare of the old people of this country and of Canadian society. This is why the government should reconsider the measure before the House and should ensure that all of our elderly people are treated fairly and squarely.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-202 which is before the House provides certain amendments to the present Old Age Security Act.
Unfortunately, it also contains certain provisions which are not likely to clarify the matter of eligibility. In fact, there is bound to be mistakes in interpretation followed by much correspondence to clarify the situation in certain particular cases.
The adjustment to the supplement, although small, will be appreciated. However, I am of the opinion that the government should have taken into account various factors which at times cause inconveniences to older people.
In the paper La Presse of Saturday, May 9, 1970, there was an article claiming that the role and place of older people has yet to be determined, and I quote:
For the state and for industry, one becomes old at 65. At that age, one no longer has the right to work, one is no longer considered productive. One is only entitled to a bare minimum, like widows and crippled children.
The heart specialist, Dr. Paul David, recently asked: Why live longer, if one cannot lead a useful life? On the other hand, a gerontologist with the Jewish General Hospital, who also works in two veterans' hospitals in the Montreal area, disagrees that productivity should be used as a criterium in judging man. An old man could be happy even without being useful, according to this doctor, if he is still loved and if he still has dealings with other people.
Harvest Years, an American magazine for retired people, has this to say about the needs of the old: to be in good health and to have as much independence as possible; to have enough economic security to ensure food, shelter, clothing, medical care and leisure; to be assured of a role in life, of a place in society, to continue to share, helps, love, talk and make plans; to keep one's self-respect, knowing that one is useful, productive and active, within certain limits.
Here are two opinions out of three which lean towards usefulness. Is it easier to find some usefulness for old people or to accept for them (and to have them accept it) a reference role?
A real pension plan should be devised so as to enable old people to use this maturity at an important stage of their life in order to put in practice a life philosophy that it is impossible to have at an earlier age.
If reduced physical strength or the departure of their friends have closed certain doors to them, their maturity opens others. Their share of disappointment in life has increased their cautiousness and this enables them to avoid trouble. Whatever privileges the pensioner has to give up, he still keeps the right to usefulness and dignity.
Everybody cannot find enjoyment from the same sources. Each must try and discover his own capabilities and seek enjoyment according to his own limits, being always very careful not to ask nor hope for what is impossible. Society does not do all its duty if it provides only for the physical well-being of pensioners without any regard for their emotional and psychological needs. It is a mistake to believe that we can, so to speak, put them out to pasture by providing them with food, clothing and shelter.
Canada must endeavour to make the most of the enormous supply of ideas, talents and skills which are represented by its one and a half million people over 65.
During all their active life, these persons have used knowledge inherited from their predecessors, and now, as they are about to retire, they are able to carry out their obligations and to pass it on to their successors.
When we examine a little more closely the fate of the retired people, we soon notice that much has still to be done in order to create that just society which has been promised and which the people want.
It is found that most needy pensioners continue to suffer severe hardship besides living in constant insecurity. It is sometimes ridiculous to hear people speak of guaranteed income. They would be better advised if they tried to palliate the disastrous effects of the present system, which I would call the "guaranteed tax system".
Insufficient consideration is given to fluctuations of monetary values, so that the continuous rise in the cost of living within the system now in force confronts pensioners with serious financial problems, in addition to difficulties arising from application of regulations cover-

December 10, 1970

ing portability and the army of inspectors whose primary mission seems to be the protection of "the fund".
By granting a 42 cent monthly increase, the government steers them in the right direction. They do not seem to mind some sort of bargaining concerning senior citizens.
Quebec City's Le Soleil reported on March 3, 1966 a statement by the Minister of National Health with a headline which illustrates well that the legislation is drafted to protect our unbalanced financial system. I quote:
An increase in old age pensions would result in a tax hike and serious anomalies.
This is the underlying concept of this legislation. They make promises during the election campaign, but after all they can do is tax.
Since the percentage of people 60 years of age is high, it is obvious that the eligibility age for pensions should be reduced to 60, while respecting the freedom of those who want to continue to work and ensuring at the same time that the unemployed or the disabled are eligible for a pension instead of having to beg for welfare allowances.
As always many will worry about the same question of where to get the money they need. I should point out incidentally that in answer to a question asked in 1964 concerning the interest on the public debt of Canada officials indicated that since 1867 Canada had paid more than $15 billion for servicing the public debt. Mind you, "for servicing the debt". Yet our administrators and their underlings wonder where the money will come from. It is known that the amount paid since then for interest only on the public debt exceeds one billion dollars each year.
This financial cancer is now spreading. Municipalities, school boards, provincial governments and even the federal government use up 40 to 70 per cent of their budget to pay off interest on their loans. People are overburdened with taxes and debts of all kind.
Money does not grow on trees. It is produced, controlled and made scarce by men. We should be able, through an adequately oriented show of will, to change this system, replace it and put everything back where it belongs.
Money is a tool designed to allow people to satisfy their needs, provided those who produce or control it take due account of the value of the human person and of everybody's right to life, a natural right acquired by birth which should enjoy precedence over regulations established by those who manipulate money and credit.
Instead of basing our economic system on logic and natural order, we remain attached to a system which severely restricts the means of distribution and the flow of abundant goods which are now available; as a consequence, thousands of Canadians have to live in slums despite the available quantity of materials which they could use to build decent homes.
Old Age Security
I do not think one has to be a university graduate to realize that men were created with needs for food, clothing, housing, affection and mutual help. Neither businessmen nor politicians meant it that way.
[DOT]	(3:10 p.m.)
Admittedly, the Lord in his wisdom has created all goods necessary for the needs of all people, and we have the good fortune, in Canada, to find that goods are plentiful. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has visited several countries in the world to offer them our production surpluses.
Our difficulties are not derived from our inability to produce or to build, but rather from our inability to pay. Financially, we are unable to act, although our production system works well, our financial system does not.
This is a topical question that deserves much more consideration than it has received until now, if we mean to develop a mechanism which would make financially possible what is physically and morally feasible.
If we really want to prepare for a better future, we must make efforts along this line.
[DOT]	(3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on Bill C-202 which deals with the Old Age Security Act. I know a great deal of discussion has taken place on this particular piece of legislation. Once it goes to the committee our group is hopeful that amendments will be offered which will be acceptable to the government so as to make the legislation more acceptable to those concerned. I feel I should place my views on the record concerning the legislation because I shall not have another opportunity to speak on it during the second reading stage.
Bill C-202 must be classed as one of the major disappointments of this 28th Parliament. Ever since this government assumed office, it has led the senior citizens of our country to expect that adequate and favourable action on the whole pension issue would follow the completion of the government's survey of the problem. Our senior citizens waited patiently and expectantly for the white paper on income security for Canadians to be drafted by the government. They had expected relief from the mounting pressure of living costs and were confident that an adequate increase in the basic pension would result.
The bill before us will set the basic old age security pension at $80 a month. This change is to become effective on January 1, 1971, which is only three weeks from today. The disappointing and unjust aspect of this new $80 basic old age security pension is the fact that it is only 42 cents more than the amount being received now by the pensioners. This is a government which talks about the just society, and yet it increases the basic pension by 42 cents a month or $5.04 per year. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very large number of

December 10, 1970
Old Age Security
disappointed and heartbroken senior citizens in our nation as a result of this legislation.
The crowning insult to the senior citizen who only receives the basic old age security pension is the fact that the government will now take away from him the 2 per cent cost of living bonus which was designed to stop the erosion of the purchasing power of the pension. This is one of the most discriminatory and unfair changes in this amending bill. It is contrary to a number of recent pension plans in which clauses have been included covering the escalation of the pensions. Why has the government deliberately chosen to disregard this principle in respect of pensioners who receive only a basic old age security pension? Why have they been singled out for this type of discrimination?
Let us briefly examine several pension plans which recently have been approved by this House. A little less than a year ago, we accepted the principle that the pensions granted under a number of plans should be escalated so as to prevent the rising cost of living from eroding the purchasing power of the pension. This makes sense. Retired people should be protected against inflation and against a lowering of their standard of living by this method. As a result, after accepting the principle, we applied it to a number of pension plans which come under our jurisdiction. It now applies to the pensions of retired civil servants, retired RCMP personnel, retired armed forces personnel and retired Members of Parliament.
If these groups are entitled to pension escalation because of the rising cost of living, then this principle should be applied also to the basic old age security pension. The total income of the pensioners who receive the basic old age security pension plus part of the supplement is not nearly sufficient. The maximum amount a single individual can now obtain with the basic pension of $80 plus the full supplement of $55 is a total of $135 a month. No one can live adequately on this amount, especially in those areas where rents take such a large chunk of the pension cheque. It is high time we set an adequate minimum income level for Canadians and made certain that all Canadians receive it. This is a special need of those whom we class as our senior citizens because they have little chance to supplement their income once they reach retirement age.
We had hoped to see an old age security pension of $150 a month, with a supplement for those who have no additional income. The present legislation falls far short of this goal. We also hoped there would be a provision to fully cover any future increase in living costs. We find that this is not to be, insofar as the group of senior citizens who receive only the basic pension is concerned.
I shall not spend a great deal of time dealing with the other aspects of the bill. Other members in the various parties have spoken concerning the number of people affected by this legislation. Other deficiencies in the legislation have been pointed out. It is my hope that in the committee some amendments will be made to the legislation which will be acceptable to all parties in this House. If these amendments are not forthcoming through committee examination, then it is assumed that a number of amendments will be moved when the bill returns to the House of Commons. When the bill returns to the House we will have an opportunity to deal in more detail with those clauses which we feel require amendment.
In closing, I suggest that the lack of an adequate basic pension increase is a disgrace. Surely, Canada can do better than set the pension at the level of $80. Surely, Canada, which has one of the highest standards of living in the world, can devise a means to make certain that the total income of this nation is distributed a little more fairly than this piece of legislation does. Let me say this: You are not going to satisfy the old age pensioners and we do not intend to stop fighting for a pension which will come closer to meeting their needs than does the niggardly approach this government has taken.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You have done this for 30 years now. All you do is continually ask for more.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Randolph Harding: It is alright, Mr. Speaker; we do not mind the minister complaining about the fact that this party fights for the underprivileged in this country. We will continue to do this. We will continue to fight until we reach the stage where the poverty line in this country disappears and we do not have to be needling this government year in and year out to do its job. Under a just society you have objectives and aims, and you should be moving in that direction; but you are not doing it. That is why we are calling for action today.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Bechard:: That is what we are doing.


Randolph Harding: We see people who talk of progress, and are supposed to be progressive in their outlook, allowing standards such as this to be legislated in 1970 in Canada.
In closing, may I say that I think it is a disgrace that we are going to offer to our senior citizens a basic pension of $80. It is amazing that we can do so much for other groups of pensioners, but just because these people have not the power to use a lever on this government, members of the government sit back and go to sleep. I am very disappointed that the minister and the government, after months and months of considering income security for all Canadians, would come down with legislation such as this which makes the poor subsidize the poor. You have had reports on tax reform, so why do you not use some of them to give the senior citizens of our country the break which they should have had many years ago?


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly. The essential points in this debate have been made but, as is the case with most debates in this place and in committees, the central points are made, the logic is acknowledged, the facts are

December 10, 1970

accepted, and then no change is made in the legislation. Continuing with the age old tradition of trying, I will make a few observations.
What are the essential points in the new legislation? First of all, the basic pension will be increased phenomenally from $79.58 to $80. If there were no legislation, there would have been a phenomenal increase to $81.17. Second, the escalator clause has been removed from the basic pension, the magnanimous escalator clause that does not keep pace with the actual cost of living for pensioners who have to live in a society where the rate of inflation goes beyond 2 per cent each year. Third, there was the big increase in GIS so loudly and proudly proclaimed by the government. What is the amount of this increase? For a single person, the increase is $23 and for a married couple it is $32.
What does this fantastic increase mean for pensioners who qualify? Let us keep in mind that they do not qualify unless they earn less than $110 a month. It means they get this additional money, but under the new legislation this increase will put them into the category of those who have to pay income tax. When you put these two facts together, you will discover that the elderly people who have spent their working lives in this country will live in 1970 at the poverty level. There are thousands of them who, with this announced increase in pension, will barely eke out an existence, whether they live in big cities, small towns or in the country. Yet, government spokesmen have pointed to this action with great pride.
The financing of this parsimonious and cruel measure, as has already been pointed out, comes in the main from the poor themselves. I should correct that in part, the money will come-


Mr. Munro:: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question? He mentioned the fact that old age pensioners who receive $110 a month would be disqualified. He means, disqualified from what? Does he mean disqualified from receiving the GIS? Does he realize that on top of the $110 they would receive the universal pension of $80, making $190?


John Edward Broadbent: I hope the minister realizes that even if pensioners receive $110 and then receive their pension in addition to that, they have to pay income tax so, actually they will still be living at the poverty level. That is the point I am trying to make, and I hope the minister will take note of it.


John Carr Munro: There is not much tax on that amount.


John Gilbert: But the total pension is still below the poverty level. That is why there is the FRAP organization in Montreal.


John Edward Broadbent: The money comes not from increased taxes on all those in Canada who are affluent-and i would include all Members of Parliament in that category-nor, even from increased taxes on the average
Old Age Security
person. It will really come from the old age security fund itself. That is to say, the parsimonious increase that has been granted to our elderly citizens will be provided for by other elderly citizens who themselves have real need of that money. What is needed instead, as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as well as many others have pointed out, is a substantial increase in the pension, at least up to a level that would take all our elderly citizens out of poverty.
The proposal that we made was to increase the pension up to $150 for all those over 65, and to add to that an escalator clause which would correspond in its effect to the real increase in the cost of living. This proposal should be financed by a redistribution of income in the country, that is by increases in taxes on all those of us who can afford to pay such increases and not by taking money from the old age pension fund which is already in existence.
I will conclude by saying simply that the minister comes from a town noted for the manufacture of steel. As all people know, steel is cold, hard and inflexible. I should like to suggest that the minister and his government are revealing an attitude toward the elderly people of Canada which corresponds very well to the best known product of his home town. It is cold, hard and inflexible.


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


John Gilbert: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker? I think it is the custom before the debate closes for the minister to answer any of the questions that have been asked in speeches by hon. members. Even though he is not bound by the rules to do so, this is a custom and a courtesy that ministers follow. I would expect this minister to comply with it.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member knows, there is no such rule. It may be a practice, although it is certainly not a universally accepted practice. There are instances where the minister does close the debate. The only rule is that if the minister chooses to take part in the debate and speaks a second time, this second contribution closes the debate. But that is left entirely to the discretion of the minister. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) moved: that Bill C-205, to amend the Regional

December 10, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act Development Incentives Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the legislation before us is to increase employment by broadening and strengthening our industrial development incentives.
There are two main proposals. One is to introduce a system of loan guarantees to operate in conjunction with incentive grants. The other is to provide a special incentive on a short-term basis, designed to give a particular stimulus to get new industrial projects moving in the next year or two.
The loan guarantees will become a full and permanent part of the program, that is to say, they will be available as long as the legislation is in force and in all of the designated regions. I hope and expect that they will develop into a significant instrument of economic expansion policy.

Several small businesses complain because they are unable to borrow at reasonable terms, even when their plans are good, but we are ready to help them. We want to test a new kind of assistance. When the carrying out of a project requires more funds then can be borrowed at reasonable terms, we will be in a position to guarantee that part of the loan exceeding the amount a bank or any other lender would normally have granted.
In general, large businesses can quite easily borrow if need be. It is not so for small businesses, especially in depressed areas of the country. We are ready to take certain risks to help small Canadian businesses establish themselves where there is a more urgent need of employment.
The ceiling of the loan will be 80 per cent of the total of the fixed investments made by the company, following deduction of any development grant or any kind of assistance from any public power. As long as the loan does not exceed that limit, we will be ready to guarantee part of it.
Service industries as well as manufacturing and processing plants may take advantage of that guarantee. In areas where expnsion is slow, service industries may not have the same difficulties as manufacturing or processing industries, but they still have problems getting capital.
Of course we could not guarantee all loans incurred by a multiplicity of small businesses or motels in designated areas. We will now be required by the act to define the areas where the establishment or large commercial concerns can contribute considerably to the economic expansion of slow growth areas. For instance, this could mean administration buildings, stores, convention centres and hotels.

In short, the bill's provisions for loan guarantees will both increase the scope of our encouragement to development and make it more effective. In manufacturing, that will be especially true for small and new enterprises that
have great difficulty in getting money for projects that big companies finance easily out of their own resources.
The loan guarantees may also be especially helpful to existing plants that need to modernize or go out of business. Often, the biggest part of the expense in such cases is not so much the new equipment as the cost of re-organizing the existing plant and operations. Borrowing money in such situations can be particularly difficult. There may be an especially large role for the guarantees in helping plants to re-organize and modernize and thereby preserving jobs that would otherwise be lost.
I would like to refer at this point to the criticisms made by some people, who usually come from the regions of comparatively fast economic growth, because we provide incentives to foreign controlled companies. These critics should be reminded that we do not provide incentives in order to be nice to any company, whoever owns it. We provide incentives for the sake of the people who-will get employment or, in the case of a modernization, whose jobs will be made more secure.
Whether we should have any different policy towards foreign controlled corporations is an important national issue-but it is a national issue. If we want to make changes in policy we must make them in all parts of Canada. We can, if we like, have new rules that apply wherever a plant is located. But that would not alter the importance of encouraging industry in the regions where extra jobs are especially important. That encouragement should be given in the same way to all projects in the slow-growth regions; any rules or policies about ownership and control should be national in application. In other words, if some hon. members want to attack foreign corporations, that is an issue to discuss on its merits. But it should not be used as an excuse for attacking: regional policy. However our industry is controlled, there is and will be just the same reason to give it special encouragement where people have the greatest need for it.
I turn now to the second main proposal of this bill, which is designed to give particular encouragement to industry to get ahead with investments in the next year or two. The plants will have to be built and be in production by the end of 1973. The special development incentive proposed in these cases will be a maximum of 10 per cent of capital costs in the case of expansions and modernizations of existing plants. For new plants or for expansions to produce new products, the maximum will be 10 per cent of capital costs plus $2,000 per job.
In the Atlantic provinces, the special incentive will be available in addition to the present incentive. The maximum will, therefore, become 30 per cent of capital costs for expansions and modernizations, and for new plants the maximum will be 35 per cent of capital costs plus $7,000 per job.

In the already designated areas of Quebec, Ontario and the four western provinces, the grants will remain
unchanged.
Immediately after Parliament will have approved those measures, we intend to designate a new area covering all

December 10, 1970

of the not yet designated territory of south-western Quebec including Montreal and Hull as well as Stormont, Glengarry and Prescott counties in south-eastern Ontario.
The present incentives will not apply in the sector which lies within the main Canadian industrial zone; if the situation is considered on a long-term basis, no grants will be required. However, by resorting to special incentives we want to speed up the implementation of new projects and in doing so, to cope with the alarming unemployment conditions. This is why this new area will be entitled to the new grants set at 10 per cent of capital costs and at $2,000 per job created.
Needless to say, this new guarantee system will apply in this area just as they do in the other designated areas.

Since the special incentive will be particularly helpful within the province of Quebec, it is important that I dispose of some inaccurate statements that have been made about the operations of the incentives program to date. There have been suggestions in some quarters that favouritism is already being shown to Quebec. I do not know whether the people who make these suggestions- these are probably the same people who say, "If you want to solve the problems in Quebec you should solve the economic problems there," and when we solve them then they say we have favoured Quebec-are incapable of doing arithmetic or whether they are trying to stir up antagonisms by deliberate misrepresentations. Certainly, one or other of those explanations must be correct, since the facts are quite contrary to the accusations.
Let me state the facts. From the beginning of the program to the end of November, we have committed $91 million in offers which have been accepted by the companies concerned. Of this $91 million, just over a third or $32 million, is committed to industries in Quebec. Slightly more, $34 million, is committed to industries in the four Atlantic provinces.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The purpose of the program is to increase employment. The latest figures, for October, show that there were then
34,000	unemployed people in the Atlantic provinces, and in Quebec the number of unemployed was 159,000. In other words, at present what we have committed in incentives in Quebec is almost exactly $200 per unemployed person, and in the Atlantic provinces it is almost $1,000 per unemployed person, five times as much. I may add that the same calculation for the prairies works out at $250 per unemployed person, a little more than the figure for Quebec.
Of course, there is nothing final about these comparisons. They will fluctuate considerably from time to time, as major projects materialize in one region or another. Indeed, we have just had an offer accepted that will greatly increase the figure for the Prairies Certainly, we expect to do much more for Quebec over the next few months. The reason is that, in relation to the severity of the unemployment problem, the program has as yet made a relatively small impact in Quebec. Anyone who claims
Regional Development Incentives Act that it is already biased in favour of Quebec is not telling the truth. What we are trying to do is to meet the needs as well as we can, wherever they are greatest. For a program so new, operating in the circumstances of a general slowdown in the economy, we have already had a fair measure of success. We are going to achieve much more success.
The two main proposals for this purpose are the loan guarantees and the special incentive. The bill before the House also proposes some minor and consequential amendments to the program. For example, the introduction of the special incentive makes it important to lengthen, from 12 months to 18 months, the time that companies will have to get a plant into production after a region ceases to be designated. This will simplify administration if it should prove desirable to change the boundaries of the regions.
Also, we propose to remove the absolute limit of $12 million on the size of any development incentive. This only affects plants employing more than 400 people, because the limit of $30,000 per job directly created in the plant will continue to apply. That, I would emphasize, is the absolute limit for developments with the most intensive use of capital. The incentives we are actually paying generally cost a great deal less. The projects under way to date will provide 15,949 permanent jobs. The average, for the offers accepted so far, is $5,700 per job.
I emphasize that these 15,949 permanent jobs are simply the new jobs that will be created directly in the industries we are assisting. The figure does not include any credit for the existing jobs that will be preserved by modernization of plants. It is entirely new, direct employment. It does not include employment in constructing the new factories and equipment; it does not include the indirect employment that will arise as the plants come into production and buy materials and services, and it does not include all the extra jobs that there will be in the consumer industries when the workers in the new plants spend their wages.
The economists tell us that these indirect effects add up to about two additional jobs for each one created directly. In other words, the legislation that this House passed in the summer of last year has already set in motion the creation, in total, of about 48,000 jobs.


Mr. Danforth:: Oh boy-that is in theory.


Jean Marchand: I am the first to say that in the present state of our economy, that is far from enough.


John Gilbert: Right.


Jean Marchand: I found that out before you did. It is a good start. But we have to continue. We have to continue on a bigger scale. That is the reason for this amending legislation. I hope and believe that it will have the support of all hon. members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the launching of the new development incentives program in summer 1969 meant a considerable

December 10, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act amount of work for department officials. The improvements proposed in the bill entail a lot of work and we shall have to increase the personnel. The decisions will get increasingly more complex and important. That is why I suggest the creation of a board comprising senior officials of my department, representatives of the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as well as specialists from the private sector. Thus we shall be able to see to it that this most important program give the best possible results.
When we initiated the present program less than 18 months ago, many people were skeptical, and rightly so, about the chances this unprecedented measure had to succeed.
We had to learn from experience and that explains why we made mistakes. Yet I believe the program indubitably meets the present needs and produces excellent results. The amendments I propose have no other purpose than make it more efficient.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister's introduction to what we consider to be a most important bill, but he did not tell us very much. We had already read the press release from the minister explaining the proposed amendments to the bill. For what little enlightenment we gained, he could have dispensed with the speech which he made today.


Thomas Miller Bell: Hear, hear!


Albert Béchard: They are never satisfied.


James Aloysius McGrath: We have considered this to be a most important bill for a number of reasons. First of all, it is the first time that this act has been opened by Parliament since originally passed. The act has now been in operation for a full year, so we will want to examine it from that viewpoint. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we are naturally very interested in examining the full intent of the amendments proposed by the government. I might say that we on this side of the House do not agree with the government's concept of regional expansion embodied in this bill. We will enlarge on this during the course of the debate and during the clause by clause examination in committee.
The bill is a relatively simple one, but the principle is very important and complex and it is on this principle that we want to examine the government very closely and carefully. The mechanics of the amendments can be dispensed with very quickly. Mr. Speaker, we want to question the minister's estimate of the number of jobs that have been created. I am very anxious to get into that and anxious to analyze the figure of 48,000 jobs. I should like to know how the government arrived at that figure.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
What I consider the most startling failure of the government's regional development policy is its inability to
come to grips with the fundamental problems of regional disparity in this country. After all, this is what the bill is supposed to do, together with legislation setting up the minister's department. This fundamental problem of development, sir, involves the question of ways in which the federal government contributes to the fulfilment of a given region's potential, in order that the citizens of that region can enjoy a standard and quality of life which meets an acceptable level.
In my view, Sir, this goal can only be accomplished if the first premise of any development strategy for Canada is based on the fact that Canada is comprised of five different economic regions, five regions with different potentials and different economic aspirations. It is only by approaching regional development from the standpoint of this premise that we can hope to meet with any degree of success. A strong national economic policy dedicated to full employment can only be successful if the economic realities of Canada dictate the development policy followed by the government. This regional concept of our economy is an economic fact of life in Canada, and one which this government will sooner or later have to recognize.
A strong national economic policy means a prosperous economy for Ontario and it means prosperity for the other industrial regions of Canada. A strong and prosperous Ontario or a strong and prosperous Quebec mean that the federal government and the national economy are better equipped to assist the disadvantaged regions of the country. Increased assistance to the disadvantaged areas of Canada is only possible if full employment is a national policy for all Canada. It therefore follows, Sir, that a strong national economy and our ability to assist the disadvantaged areas within Canada amount, of course, to the same thing. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that the co-ordination of development with stability means prosperity for all the regions of Canada. We believe that this approach must, of necessity, dictate the government's attitude towards regional development.
There are many aspects of the bill before the House, which embodies the main thrust of the government's regional development policy or the government's program for dealing with regional disparities in this country, that we shall want to examine. We shall want to examine the bill carefully in committee and hear expert witnesses who will be able to enlighten us about the proper approach that we ought to take in this country in order to achieve a meaningful regional development policy. Above all, the government must set for itself guidelines in order to meet the demands of regional development and to end regional disparities in this country.
We feel that the first guideline must be the recognition that the provinces, municipalities and regional agencies involved in any regional development plan know what is best for them. We believe that the regions of the country are in the best position to tell the government exactly what form of development is best suited to that particular regional economy. I say that, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has built up a virtual army of experts,

December 10, 1970

bureaucrats and technocrats in Ottawa and all across this country. These so-called experts, well meaning though they are, fail to take full advantage of the expertise in the provinces, municipalities and regional agencies of this country. We believe that it is appropriate, and indeed necessary, for each region to develop its own view of its own potential. This view would, of course, be based upon the economic capabilities of the region and the kind of life that the citizens of the region wish to live. We believe that present government policy fails to take these factors into account. What is good for Montreal or southeastern Ontario is not necessarily good for Cape Breton Island or Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Second, the keynote of any development strategy should include, in our view, a uniform approach to the problems of education, health and housing facilities, which should be standard for all Canadians and should be a right of citizenship in this country. Each region has a responsibility to its citizens to ensure that they have adequate health and housing facilities. These facilities must be made available in all areas and in all regions.
Third, Mr. Speaker, we believe that regional economic development is based upon regional potential and not a region's imperfect ability to copy the economic potential of another region. We believe this area is one of the main weaknesses of the government's approach to regional development in this country. This government has embarked upon a national policy of development through industrialization. The government has attempted to assist industries to locate in designated areas or slow-growth centres and by doing that it has ignored three fundamental facts.
First, it has ignored the fact that the location of industries under the area industrial incentives Act, or under this program, is at the intiative of the industry and not of the government. Neither the federal government nor any other government exercises any of this initiative. The initiative is placed solely in the hands of industry. Industry may locate in any of the designated regions of the country. As a matter of fact, industry now has the whole country from which to choose. Consequently, the disadvantaged regions lying at the geographic extremes of the country-areas such as the Atlantic provinces, certain parts of the north and northern Ontario-do not stand a chance. They just cannot compete, and there is no way in which they can compete.
Second, all such industrialization is bilateral between the industry and the federal government. In other words, the province does not, of necessity, come into the picture. The federal government makes the move by providing the incentive, and it can only hope that the industry in question will establish itself in any particular designated area. As I have said, an industry has practically all Canada from which to choose. This state of affairs is a basic failure of the program. This fact becomes self evident when anyone gives close scrutiny to the program that is contemplated by this measure.
Regional Development Incentives Act
Third, Sir, the type of industry that may be encouraged by virtue of the grant may not be the type of industry that can be properly sustained in the area in which it locates. For example, there is no point in building an automobile plant in northern Newfoundland. It would be too far away from major markets. Transportation difficulties are inherent in such locations. Yet this factor has all too often been ignored because the government does not possess the initiative; the initiative is in the hands of industry to locate where it will. The program should take into account the recreation or resource development of the area. This should be a guiding factor in the government's program. Hence, we get an expansion of the regional approach to this question instead of a national blanket approach such as the government proceeds to follow by trial and error.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We believe that provincial and local governments must participate in the planning of development strategy. Thus far, they have been largely ignored. We firmly believe that one federal strategy for development is neither possible nor desirable, with five unique economic regions, a multiple strategy is necessary. Accordingly, we must examine the intent of this area incentives legislation and we must examine closely the record of the act to date.
Fourth, regional development strategy in our view should harmonize with national economic management. The government has embarked on a nationwide campaign to control inflation. We all know the consequences of this campaign. By the use of its fiscal and monetary levers, the government forced the have-not provinces to pay a price altogether out of proportion to the contribution they made to the inflationary spiral in the first place. Consequently, there is disproportionately high unemployment in the areas which contributed least to inflation. This is why there is an anticipated unemployment figure in the Atlantic provinces of 14 per cent this winter. God knows how high it will go. It will certainly exceed that amount. In my own province of Newfoundland, it will probably reach 18 per cent or even 20 per cent. It is the have-not provinces which pay the piper for the tune this government calls in trying to fight inflation. I am of the opinion that the government has failed to take this into account when determining its monetary and fiscal policy. It has failed to harmonize these efforts with its regional development program.
To sum up, we believe the designated area concepts have been too generally applied. The result is that the disadvantaged regions of Canada receive no help, or very little help, in attracting industry. No one will quarrel with the designation of southeastern Ontario; no one will quarrel with the designation of the City of Montreal and the City of Hull. God knows, these cities need help. We know how alarmingly high unemployment has become in the City of Montreal, and we know something has to be done about it. Perhaps the government should have given consideration to making these places special areas instead of designated areas so that there could have been a more concentrated and dramatic approach to the problem. I

December 10, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act notice the minister nods his head. Unfortunately, that nod is not recorded in Hansard.


Thomas Miller Bell: It is now.


James Aloysius McGrath: I hope the minister will enlarge upon this aspect, because we realize there are serious problems in Montreal. I have no doubt, though, that there is also a serious problem in Vancouver where there is a high rate of unemployment. How will Vancouver react? I am sure that if the figures were examined it would be found there was serious unemployment in Edmonton and in Toronto. The situation requires that a special development program be implemented. But I ask that the government should heed the consequences to the Atlantic provinces, to northern Ontario and to some of the prairie regions of this country by his designation of Montreal. Surely, in the first instance, the concept was to enable the regions I have mentioned to compete with large industrial areas such as Montreal. It must be logical, then, to suggest that what the minister has done has been to defeat the very purpose of the act. And this is unfortunate for the Atlantic provinces, especially.
Reaction has already come from the Atlantic provinces economic council and from the government of New Brunswick. I hope that when this bill goes before the committee witnesses from these areas will be able to tell the committee and, hopefully, the minister, exactly what this will mean in terms of the government's regional development policy.
Furthermore, we believe the act fails to give the government control of the development process. Under the program as now set up, the government is merely a passive agent. The legislation has been operated in such a way that provincial governments, municipal governments and local bodies have been largely ignored. Yet the minister tells us that we must continue on a basis of trial and error. I contend that there is no need to continue on such a basis. I suggest to the minister, and to his senior officials, that if they were more willing to consult with provincial agencies, planning boards and municipal councils a lot of these errors would be eliminated. A little humility on the part of the department would help greatly.
Finally, we believe this act has not been fully selective in its application and that it has failed to recognize the economic facts of life in this country. These facts dictate that there must be a regional approach to regional disparity and not one blanket national approach as this government insists.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to say a few words on this bill on behalf of members of the New Democratic Party. Bill C-205 provides for a number of important changes in the Regional Development Incentives Act and it would appear to be, as the minister indicated, a major component of the government's program to improve economic conditions in Quebec.
To the extent that it may accomplish something useful in this regard we welcome it, but because of factors I
shall be discussing later I have serious doubt whether it will accomplish the desired end. Some of the provisions of this bill require close examination. But before we analyse the specific proposals and get into the nuts and bolts of the bill, it is necessary to take a good look at the government's regional development programs and their relationship to general economic policy.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Regional development programs were presented by the government as a major weapon in the so-called war on poverty. The government introduced its programs with widespread support throughout Canada, as well as from all parties in the House of Commons. Few ministers have been as fortunate as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) in the extent of the support that he received for his new program.
It will be generally recognized that instant solutions are not possible in dealing with the types of problems that are tackled in regional development programs. However, the new program, which has been developed on the experience of the old area incentive development program, has been in effect for a year and a half, and Canadians have the right to ask just how that program has been operating. A great deal of money has been made available to this department, contrary to the experiences of other departments and, I suspect, to the envy of some of them. But we must now ask whether we are receiving value for our expenditures, whether these funds are being used in the best possible way.
The minister's remarks in the debate on November 19 gave us part of the answer. He indicated that under all incentive programs to date there had been an inves.ment of $1.1 billion, $205 million of which had been provided through grants. Some 36,000 new jobs were claimed, both directly and indirectly, consequential upon the incentive grants made available. However, as I understood it, direct jobs were only in the order of some 15,000. The fact is that many of these new plants are not yet in operation, and some may never be in operation. Furthermore, the minister admitted that some new plants were constructed independently of incentives. I suggest the record is a pretty sorry one. In terms of number of jobs created, the performance has been pretty dismal when related to the unemployment figures revealed today showing 476,000 people out of work in November, 1970.
It seems to me that one of the problems we are contending with in the government's program is the ad hoc approach that is being used in many instances. The government seems to have dashed in here and dashed in there in order to help put out economic fires of one sort or another. Very often they used a single program approach centred for the most part on industrial incentives, industrial incentives restricted mainly to secondary manufacturing industries.
We now have the special Quebec program that is des'gned to deal with problems with which we are all familiar and which have been discussed at great length in recent months. With regard to the remarks made by the minister, I want to make it quite clear that any

December 10, 1970

gram to deal with the problems of foreign ownership and control in the Canadian economy, then I suggest this willingness on the part of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to allow grants and allow giveaways to foreign controlled corporations comes into direct conflict with any such program which might be developed in the future.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
When we come to the framework of the government's program, I think there are a number of serious problems as well. I believe there are very serious problems in respect of the management of the whole program and the myriad systems in the program which are being developed, such as primary incentives, secondary incentives, special area programs and so on. I suggest that within the framework in which the government has been developing this program, the program has become an unmanageable monstrosity. I suggest further that within the framework of the program itself there has been an inadequate amount of analysis of the projects for which grants are being provided. In terms of the analysis, and in terms of taking a look at the operations, one might find there are a number of operations in respect of which the real purpose of obtaining a grant or extra assistance is to bail out other types of operations.
Is there any prohibition against a new company being established which may be very legitimate but which may consist of shareholders who also hold shares in some other companies which are experiencing difficulties? This could lead to serious difficulties through the new company taking over the shares of the other companies and operating them as a subsidiary of the new company. By this means, it could engage in a bail-out operation which would be of no benefit to the people of Canada or the new shareholders who may eventually become involved in the operation.
Also, I believe it is very important that the government take a look at the economics of the projects it intends to assist. All projects should be subject to an economic criteria and analysis in order to make sure that the project is economically sound, because I do not think it is wise to assist a project which is not viable in the first place. In some respects it might be a disservice to a group of people in the long run if assistance were provided for a project which has no hope of surviving.
I have already dealt with one other aspect involved within the framework of the operation of this program and which has to do with policy with regard to foreign ownership and control of various companies. I also have some questions in my mind concerning what requirements are being placed on firms which receive grants with respect to pollution control. I know there is provision within the legislation to make sure that companies which receive assistance under these programs do follow adequate pollution control measures, but is there any sort of follow-through to this? Is this, in fact, being done in the operation of the department?
Finally, within the framework of the program as it is being developed, we must be concerned about the fact that there is no real strategy in terms of developing the
23568-51J
Regional Development Incentives Act
infrastructure for adequate communities. To some extent, this is being done now in certain areas and possibly is in mind in respect of some of the special areas which have been established. I realize that some steps are being taken in this direction. It would seem to me, however, that grants are being provided willy-nilly on the basis of applications from this or that firm in many parts of Canada when in fact inadequate attention is being paid to the over-all planning and development of communities.
Finally, I should like to deal with some of the problems involved in the implementation of this legislation. The first problem I might raise, and which I raise only tentatively, is the whole question of the political or partisan political aspect. I want to make quite clear that I believe the minister was sincere in the statements he has made from time to time that he wanted to keep partisan political considerations out of the operations of his department. I feel that he no doubt has made an attempt to carry that into effect. I hope he will continue to do so. Questions may arise in some people's minds from time to time, and I hope there is no cause to follow up on this particular point. I have no direct complaint at this time. Suggestions have been made to me, but I am not prepared to put them in the form of a direct complaint at the present time and I hope I shall not have cause to do so in the future.
With regard to the implementation of the government's program, there is one problem which it seems to me is being raised in the legislation before us. I refer to the fact that the government proposes to remove the ceiling on the extent of the grants which may be provided to various commercial operations or industrial operations. This is a very important change in the program. I realize there are still some limitations which are retained in the legislation, but nevertheless the ceiling is being removed.
I think we require more explanation concerning the reasons for this particular step being taken by the government.
Since there has been a ceiling of $12 million, it would seem to me when that ceiling is being removed altogether in respect of one aspect of the total sum that can be made available, some explanation is needed from the minister concerning why this is being done and why it is necessary. I wonder, for instance, if there are proposed operations which may receive more than $12 million in assistance which would not come into existence if there were not this type of assistance available.
With regard to the implementation of the program, there is the problem I have already dealt with concerning the matter of new designations being made now in conflict with the statement of the minister that there would be no more designations until the three year period expired in 1971. There are also problems of lack of consistency in the government's program. As well, I think we must be concerned about the fact that the government from time to time has provided assistance to firms which have engaged in unfair labour practices and which have paid low wages. This is a matter which I feel deserves consideration as well.
Another important problem concerns the fact that there is very little involvement or participation by the

December 10, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
people in the regionally depressed areas who will be affected by the government's regional development program There is one notable exception which has to do with some of the Newstart programs in various parts of Canada. These programs I feel have made a very important contribution in terms of the participation and involvement of people, and in helping people develop the ability to solve their own problems by taking action on their own initiative. This is a very useful type of program. Possibly I have missed some announcements, but I have not seen any announcement by the government or by the minister concerning future plans for the Newstart programs and whether, in fact, there is a plan to continue these programs either in their present form or through some successor type of organization or structure.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
But I think, coming back to the main problem, there is a feeling in many parts of Canada that in fact there is no real participation by people in dealing with the problems that the department is attempting to tackle, ihe minister has many able people who are assisting him in the department. They are able, sincere and dedicated and are trying their best to do a good job. I want to make it clear that I am not in any way deprecating the staff he has built up around him in the department. But regardless of how good a staff the minister has, it is simply impossible for him and for his department to do the type of job that is expected unless they find ways and means of involving people in the communities concerned. This is the type of emphasis that I feel the minister must develop with respect to his programs in the future.
Finally, with respect to the implementation of the program I feel that there has been too little use made of public agencies and of co-operative methods in attempting to solve economic problems in many parts of Canada. Of course, we have agencies in some areas, such as the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which I think are very healthy types of institutions which can take some initiative in dealing with economic problems m a particular region or area. This type of thing needs to be developed more in the future. There is as well the fact a point I have made already, that a higher percentage of assistance is given to firms in various parts of Canada under the proposals now before us. If there is to be 35 per cen or 50 per cent public financing in a significant number of projects, then certainly there is a very good case for ensuring that there is public involvement in the decision making and in the whole development of the projects that are involved.
Turning to the specific provisions of this bill, I recognize that some of them are designed to deal with some special problems which have come to the fore m Canada in recent months. I hope they are successful, but I am very dubious that they will in fact do the job expected of them. I am somewhat disappointed that we have had o little in the way of a thorough analysis of the legislation before us and little in the form of an analysis of the Regional Development Incentives Act now that it has been in operation for a year and a half. I have already

made some comments with respect to the special development incentive which is provided for in the bill now before us. I have some very grave doubts as to whether that, in fact, will act as any real spur to economic development in areas such as Montreal, southwestern Quebec, and possibly some areas of Ontario as well. Of course, the minister is more familiar with these parts of Canada than I am, but frankly I have to express some reservations whether, within the framework of the government's program as it has been developed-critical as I am of it-this will act as any real spur to development and to the provision of more jobs, particularly for the people in the province of Quebec where some 168,000 people are now out of work.
I was very interested to note that there is an extension of the operations of this legislation in the provision for loan guarantees. I was interested to note that these loan guarantees are to be made available to some service industries. The government, in fact, has made an important departure from policy in that it is going to go beyond the area of secondary industry and is going to assist tertiary industry as well. I am sure the minister will recall that when this legislation was originally before Parliament a year and a half ago, a number of us urged that assistance be made through these incentives both to primary and to tertiary industry based on adequate criteria. I am happy to see that this is now being made available, that the government has learned a little in this respect. I think it is possible that these loan guarantees can fulfil a useful function and that in particular as the minister pointed out in his public announcement that accompanied the introduction of the bill, it will be especially useful to small business.
I hope that that is the way in which these loan guarantees will be used, namely to help small business. In fact, I have some question in my mind as to whether or not some limitation should be built into the bill as it is now before us which would ensure that it could be made available only to a category of business that we might term small business.
Finally, we have questions regarding the lifting of the ceiling on the total amount of grants that can be made. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say on this matter, whether he feels that this ceiling should be lifted, what purpose will be served, and to what use this particular change will be put. Thus, it will be seen that we have many serious questions that need to be asked about regional development legislation and, the performance of the regional development program over the past year and a half. I look forward to further debate during the course of the second reading of this bill and also in the committee stage, because I feel that these programs are very critical to the future well-being of Canadians. I feel that the programs that have been developed by the government are inadequate and that the bill which is before us today is inadequate because it will not do the job, both within the terms of the bill and of the program as it has been developed as well as within the scope of the government's total economic policy which, as we all know, is totally inadequate.
December 10, 1970


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now
proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions, public bills.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Barnett)-Northern Affairs-Reference of land use regulations to standing committee; the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Alleged infiltration of FLQ cells; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Post Office-Christmas mail delivery.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Winona Grace MacInnis: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by Le Centre de Planification Familiale, Montreal, in the fiscal year 1969-70 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "Projet de recherche aupres du milieu defavorise urbain Quebeeois.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it was not in a frivolous way that I asked for the production of this study. For a long time I have been pressing for a much broader program of birth control and for the distribution of information regarding contraceptives, much broader than we have had up to the present time, and I may say much broader than we are likely to get for some little time yet. I am convinced that there is a need for a broad program of public education, a program that would make contraceptives freely available, and a program which would use clinics and mobile clinics travelling from house to house. Such a program is one of the great needs in this country at the present time.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, when I saw that a study had been carried out by the Department of National Health and Welfare concerning the underprivileged urban sections of Quebec I felt it would add a great deal of information with respect to the need for such a pro- ,
Family Planning Centres
gram. Unfortunately, when I am speaking today I shall have to draw my material from my own end of the country, simply because the department is following government policy by refusing to make available the information which we need.
We need information from all sections of the country in order to know exactly what we are dealing with, in order to know the different requirements of different areas. It is very tantalizing and frustrating to know that this information exists in government offices and bureaus, and that we cannot get it. It is particularly tantalizing and frustrating when we know it is not the property of the government, when we know that these reports and documents were paid for by the taxpayers of the country. Surely, the taxpayers have a right to have access to this information, particularly at a time when on every hand we find members of the government, commission reports and other documents, stating that we should have the fullest possible information made available to the public on all matters affecting government.
One point I would like to make at the outset about birth control is that as you go down the income scale the need for such a program increases. That is exactly why I wanted to get this report which deals with the least privileged sections of urban Quebec, because in my opinion conditions in urban Quebec should not greatly differ from urban Ontario and urban British Columbia, meaning especially Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that last spring a brief was presented to the Senate Committee on Poverty by the Family Planning Federation of Canada, which is the English speaking counterpart of Le Centre de Planification Familiale, in Quebec. It pointed out the close and tragic connection between poverty and large families. As an example, it cited a study of Vancouver multi-problem poor families, where one-third of them had one child or more over 15 years of age living apart from the family for reasons of adoption, placement, emotional treatment or delinquency. In other words, in those large multi-problem, poor families, the large family was also the one that incurred breakup and led to the community being saddled with extra expenses. Of course, the family itself was broken and scattered. The Planning Federation commented:
We know that the practice of family planning declines rapidly from the top to the bottom of Canada's socio-economic ladder. The poor are still having the babies, many of them unwanted babies.
In my opinion, while some people may consider abortion a crime, the real crime is the birth of unwanted children, children who from the very moment of their birth are unwanted and condemned to wander in the world alone, uncared for and completely derelict from the beginning. What we need is more democracy in such matters; that is, the right for people on low incomes to have the knowledge and the means to plan and limit their families in the same way as those on higher incomes. Ottawa must take its part in providing funds for the establishment and maintenance of family planning clinics where they are needed across Canada.

December 10, 1970
Family Planning Centres
To get the information on which to base those clinics, on where to locate them, we must have access to studies that are being kept from this House under lock and key. If birth control is not made available to the people who need it, we shall see an increase in the already far too high incidence of abortion in Canada. For that growing incidence of abortion, the government will have been responsible because of its lack of leadership in making birth control and birth control knowledge available to people across Canada. Lack of birth control means illegal abortion with all the misery, mutilation and death that come with this failure to face the facts of 1970. All the shibboleths, theology and mythology that can be uttered will not get us away from that fact.
These are the reasons I want this report and other reports of a similar character. Let me bring it down to cases, Mr. Speaker. Just the other day I was dealing with this matter in the city of Vancouver. In that city there are a number of people who are in the same situation as that of one young woman who is on social assistance. She had several children from a former marriage which broke up. Then, she lived common-law for awhile, and contracted a second marriage once she was able to get a divorce. She already had one child from the second marriage, and she did not know how to avoid having any more children, so she lost a baby through ceasarean section.
It was only after going through all the misery of having children that she could not look after-much as she loved them she could not look after them in her circumstances-and only after she had been brought into hospital and underwent a Caesarean section operation which resulted in the loss of that baby, that the doctors finally decided to sterilize her, thus granting her wish of not being vulnerable to having more children. That is a shameful condition in this day and age.
When information about birth control is available, why can it not be circulated? Why can we not have the informed opinion that will make people demand birth control programs? Some of us here may not think the situation is bad. I cite the situation in my own province as described by the Family Planning Association of British Columbia:
Every year more than 5,000 children are admitted to the care of the Superintendent of Child Welfare and the Children's Aid Societies in B.C., and more than half can be classified as unwanted-battered, disturbed, neglected, delinquent, abandoned, transient or awaiting adoption.
Babies born out of wedlock in the 1960s in this province increased from 7 to more than 12 per cent of total annual births. The largest group was born to mothers aged 15-19.
There would have been no need for those illegitimate births had we acted earlier and got a family planning program underway in Canada. We knew about the need for it. The Family Planning Association of Canada has been urging the establishment of such a program, as have welfare organizations from coast to coast. Yet we are still being denied information like this.
At this point I wish to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) for making available a bulletin about oral contraceptives, a bulletin
for which I asked in April of this year. That was when it was first published. It was sent to doctors about that time, and now we are getting it as a Christmas present. I cannot understand why that delay was necessary but thank goodness we have got it now. I sincerely want to congratulate the minister and the department for getting out this report and I hope it is only the forerunner of others. I don't see why he would not give us the report that I am asking for today, and the other ones that I shall be asking for every chance I get until the channels which need to be opened are opened.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There are some excellent things in this report and we should pay attention to them. A doctor at the Vancouver General Hospital, which is the largest in Canada and which is performing the greatest number of abortions, told me that he was quite certain that a spate of recent articles had terrorized women about the use of oral contraceptives. He felt that these articles were responsible for them declining to use the 100 per cent safe method, the oral contraceptive pill. Many of those women who did not use the pill became pregnant and then had abortions. I know that particular doctor will be thankful to see this report which points out that pills with 50 micrograms of estrogen are not considered dangerous enough to demand any special precautions, though of course some women will still need to beware of these and to have the advice of a doctor.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that to date the oral contraceptive pill is the only method that has been found almost completely successful in preventing unwanted pregnancies. In the report are the facts which, underlie the newspaper reports on the pill. The diaphragm method of contraception has a failure rate of 15 per cent; the rate of failure for the condom varies between 4 and 5 per cent; such spermicides as jellies and creams have a failure rate of between 10 and 25 per cent, while intrauterine contraceptive devices have a 2 to 3 per cent failure rate.
In practice, 25 out of every 100 women, one-quarter of every 100 women who use the rhythm method of birth control become pregnant. I am not saying whether or not they should use that method-let them square that with their conscience. But I am saying that they have every right to know the facts and to be told what risk they are running. They do not know that to date. I want to get the facts out to them so that they will know. Some years ago the American writer Robert Ingersoll said that ignorance is the only crime, and he said a great deal. I believe that the more ignorance we have the more crime we get. Ignorance is one luxury that we cannot afford in the matter of population control and population growth. The government has no business to sit on this and other reports which would throw light on this subject.
The report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women brought out some additional facts. According to that report, in 1968 there were 4,378,100 women of childbearing age, that is 15 to 45 years of age, in Canada. Yet one of the family planning clinics in Toronto was able to

December 10, 1970

process only 1,250 calls in one year. How many family planning clinics were there or are there in Canada? Again we do not have the facts. One of the functions of the Department of National Health and Welfare, should be to let us know how many clinics there are in Canada, where they are, how great the need is and estimate how many more clinics are needed.
But according to the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, only 23 of the 948 general hospitals in Canada have family planning clinics. I am glad to slate that one of these is located in the Vancouver General hospital, and it is an experiment that is working exceedingly well. I understand it is the first nonmedical facility to be permitted within the walls of the Vancouver General and it is working well. But, only 23 of the 948 general hospitals in Canada have family planning clinics. Birth control information should be made available to hospitals, teachers, doctors, public health nurses, social workers and the public in general.
In closing, I want to suggest, to appeal, to the Parliamentary Secretary to prevail upon the minister to open up the channels of communication not only by access to papers of this kind but also with a program that will let people all across the country know the facts about birth control. A program that will show the success and failure rate of different methods, and which will look into the matter of establishing clinics, is needed. In England it is known that a great many women will not attend a clinic and that some women simply cannot get to one, so mobile clinics have been established under the equivalent of our metropolitan boards of health.
I make no apology, Mr. Speaker, for using time in this way. I know there are subjects which are less important but which take up a great deal of time in this House. If the government would like to cut down on the number of papers that I shall be requesting in this House, the surest way to do it is to make those papers available right now and give them wide circulation. Some of us are deter-minded to pry open the filing cabinets of the government and get these reports out where they will be most useful in establishing the type of programs needed in this country.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
1Translation]


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to congratulate the member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for the interest she has always shown for contraception in Canada as well as for another problem that she seems to be a little more familiar with, namely abortion.
I may say that if today we are obliged to ease the legislation on abortion, it is perhaps because we have not informed the population on family planning, and I agree with the hon. member on this point.
Furthermore, I accept, on behalf of the minister, the congratulations which she has expressed and which I will be pleased to convey to him.
Family Planning Centres
I am sure that when we dealt with family planning, particularly in connection with notice of motion No. 114, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) opposed the tabling of the requested documents for the reasons I outlined in the House on October 28.
I have also learned, if my sources are to be depended upon, that Le Centre de planification familiale, in Montreal, now carrying out studies to which the hen. member made reference, has once again applied to the department for subsidies to pay the costs incurred in 1969-70 for research on the best means of ensuring family planning in the poorer sections of the province of Quebec.
Of course, it would be very difficult to table a document that has not been made public. As a matter of fact, the department has not yet read it. We believe that the report of the association referred to will probably be made public in June 1971.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has also talked about a bulletin tabled in the House. It is the immediate result of what could not be done before. The minister, as reported in a press release dated September 18, 1970, has indeed said that he would do his utmost to promote research on family planning. He has also stated that it should be recognized that the great problem is the education of the people. This could not be done before amending the Criminal Code. This is why the government acted in good faith and started to carry out this task as soon as the key means were available to it, such as the omnibus bill or the amendment to the legislation dealing with the use of contraceptives.
The bulletin my colleague referred to a moment ago is the one published from time to time by the Food and Drug Directorate for medical doctors. This month, someone saw fit to include in it the report of the special committee appointed by the minister to advise the Food and Drug Directorate on all aspects of the safety and efficacy of oral contraceptives marketed in Canada.
This brings me to give some details on the question which is a current topic, that is family planning. A government has no right, in view of its public responsibilities, to improvise legislation without being in a position to explain its motivations. The government will engage in some discussions with people engaged in research in order to determine what steps should be taken for the greatest good of the people.
I do not intend to deal with the technical aspects of that question. New and more efficient contraception methods are now being tested in Canadian clinics, because- and we must admit it-research is only just beginning as far as family planning is concerned, especially for oral contraceptives.
Research is also in progress in other countries and some of them will perhaps ignore the objections concerning the present methods, their admissibility, their efficiency and the danger they may involve.
I shall not refer either to those aspects which are perhaps most important and which are based on individual aspirations and beliefs, for their personal nature requires the greatest respect.

December 10, 1970
Family Planning Centres
I wish to try and call the members' attention to some considerations which are public in character and point out the implications of some provisions made in the field of family planning. Hon. members and the general public have displayed remarkable interest in the recent initiative taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The program for research, information and professional training in the field of family planning which was announced by the the minister has two major objectives, both essential.
The first is to make available to Canadians who so desire information and services in the field of family planning; the second is a proposal that Canada should respond positively to requests of assistance from developing countries or international organisations.
The first result of such a policy will be the very generous contribution that the Canadian International Development Agency will make to the UN to help finance demographic studies.
Canada also helps some foreign family planning programs through its membership in international organizations active in this field, such as the World Health Organization, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Apart from the fundamental demographic studies carried out by the UN demographic services, a number of these organizations are conducting independent sc ent'fic surveys and holding meetings on all aspects of the demographic problem, including family planning in countries which are presently experiencing strong social pressure. We hope that in the long run we shall be able to improve our abilities from our domestic experience of family planning and thus be in a position to take a more active part in the activities of those organizations in international aid and research.
The other factors that led the government to support a family planning program are the still relatively high maternal and infant mortality rate. In 1968, Canada ranked seventh with regard to maternal mortality, outranked mostly by countries with a national family planning policy. Numerous health authorities think that measures to identify the most endangered mothers and effective means of family planning for this group would make the mortality rate fall and consequently, would save many mothers.
It is also thought that Canada could improve the situation about infant deaths. In 1968, we became the eleventh country providing family planning services to groups which apparently are unaware of them or to whom they are not available. There is convincing evidence that family planning is the most efficient means to reduce the infant mortality rate.
We know quite well that many families, especially among the poorest ones, have no family physician and that they are trying to solve their medical problems, according to their needs, that is always at the last minute in case of emergency.
If we really want to progress in that respect, we must find new methods to contact and help those families either through community health centres or hospital clinics.
Instead of relying entirely on medical or para-medical staff to give advice, it would be perhaps be advisable to train consultants in family planning who would more easily communicate with women. We have reason to believe that many cases of illegal abortions jeopardizing the health of the mother are mostly explained by the lack of information on contraception freely and unreservedly given to women of child-bearing age.
In spite of the amendments to the legislation on abortion that came into force in August 1969, the number of therapeutic abortions in this country has steadily increased. And further efforts must be made in order to find new and better contraceptive methods, capable of meeting the needs of both women and men and as effective as possible.
With those objectives in mind, the part to be played by the federal government in family planning consists above all in assisting the provinces through advisory technical services, research grants and documents to be used for training and teaching.
Needless to say that family planning was on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference of health ministers, which ended this afternoon.
We may expect to be called upon to work in co-operation with the Canadian International Development Agency, as to the training in Canada of foreign personnel and the provision of advisory technical services for developing countries.
Most of the provinces have already taken steps to implement family planning programs, the features of which are far from standard. Some of those programs are implemented by public health services and in some cases, in co-operation with voluntary family planning agencies, sixteen of which are members of the Family Planning Federation of Canada. That federation broke new ground in helping to establish family planning services in most of our larger centres and especially in giving information to the public. On account of the experience acquired by that federation, we shall try to implement in close cooperation with them some stages of the family planning program set out by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Besides, some aspects of this program have been applied for several years. Few people know it but quite significant support is provided to research on the medical, biological and social aspects closely related to family planning under several internal and external research programs of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
In addition, research programs on family planning, in so far as they are related to biology and sociology, are included in grants programs for research in the field of public health and social welfare.
There is also some kind of a research program carried out in the very laboratories of the Food and Drug Direc-

December 10, 1970

torate. For example, studies were made on the effect of certain contraceptives on fertility and other functions and to the possible relations between particular drugs. Most of the research work has been carried out on humans. Under the direction of our colleague, Dr. Hur-teau, the University of Ottawa has undertaken under contract very promising research on a contraceptive that could be used over a long period of time.
It must be added that similar projects have been approved by the research grants program of the Medical Research Council. For instance, research has been carried out on the biochimy and metabolism of steroids and hormones which have an influence on reproduction, on genetics, on reproduction immunology and finally chromosomic research on human populations.
The department is also studying some of the problems of abortion which is the most undesirable type of birth control. Abortion is very costly and, as I said a while ago, can do irreparable harm. Since we shall have an opportunity, later on, to discuss this question in the House, we shall then provide necessary particulars.
As concerns the major part of this research on family planning under federal governments grants (excluding the Medical Research Council program), I would rather be modest and say that this is only a beginning, especially in the social science field. We wish to set priorities in research on family planning, stressing pilot-projets, evaluation of programs and assessment of efforts provided in the field of education. From an administrative point of view, our efforts could have more weight if we changed the method used for financing research and directed those necessarily limited funds toward specific fields whose priority has been recognized.
The department aims at training qualified staff which will be responsible for considering and applying the various proposals designed to increase family planning services through information, personnel training and research. Of course, such a proposal should first of all be studied in conjunction with the provincial governments concerned. We also hope that some time will be devoted to family planning matters at the next conference of health ministers. As I suggested a while ago, it would seem that all delegates at the conference of health ministers have received the bulletin on family planning which has been distributed to them.
I would also like to mention that, for reasons which are not totally clear, Canada has relatively few specialists and experts in family planning, which requires qualifications in many disciplines. Educational books and other kinds of public information documents will be prepared for those working in this field at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have to add that the federal government, with the means at its disposal, does everything to indicate to the Canadian people that it is absolutely necessary to allow an individual to use his free choice in connection with such things. That is why the federal government will give the necessary directions as the results of research will be known and that it will inform the population on the best steps to take in connection with family planning.
Family Planning Centres
Even if that matter falls under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government must nonetheless be able to grant subsidies for programs of that kind, which will contribute to the development of this country. I believe that the government is pionnering, as indeed it has always been, in the social field, and I am sure that it will provide assistance in order to better life in Canada, not only for certain groups of society but for all Canadians.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That is the talking-out team over there.


An hon. Member:: They're doing well.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us this afternoon in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) reads as follows:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by Le Centre de Planification Familiale, Montreal, in the fiscal year 1969-70 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "Projet de recherche aupres du milieu defavorise urbain Quebecois".
This study, as I understand it, relates to family planning in the Montreal area-to families in the low-income bracket and the effect of low income, poor housing and limited education upon the size of families. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway drew attention very ably in the course of her speech to the social and welfare aspects involved. She told us that throughout the country there were only 23 family planning centres so far; it does not appear that a great deal of advantage has yet been taken of the change in the Criminal Code introduced rather more than a year ago which allowed information to be made public, at least by government bodies and non-profit public groups.
The hon. lady suggested mobile clinics might be provided, such as they have in Europe. This would extend, I presume, to "storefront" centres for family planning advice. One inquiry came to me from a social welfare group which wanted to set up a clinic of this type. This was very shortly after the change in the Criminal Code. The Department of National Health and Welfare was most helpful. They provided me with names and addresses of people who could help, suggestions for the structure of the organization, the kind of people who would be supervising, and so on. I believe the group for which I made inquiries went ahead, in co-operation with the provincial department of health, to establish a family planning centre.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Isabelle) indicated that this study was undertaken in Montreal and that the final report would possibly be published some time next June. It seems to me it would be very wise to have the report
1940

December 10, 1970
Family Planning Centres
in final form before it is made public and available for general use. Surely, in this type of project a little knowledge could be a dangerous thing. I think the results of the study should be appraised and put into concise form which would be useful to groups throughout the country that want to establish family planning centres, because certainly it appears there are not enough of them.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I notice that in their statement this afternoon the ministers of health who have been attending the federal-provincial conference referred to this question. This is an indication that these ministers are continuing to be interested in this subject. I should like to read what they said:
The ministers reviewed trends with regard to abortion, and expressed the need for greater attention to be paid to family planning, Support was given to the concept of a family planning approach which stresses the need for research, public information and training of health personnel involved with family planning.
It therefore appears that this group will have a responsibility to the people of Canada as well as the members of this House. They have continued to give the matter a great deal of their attention: this was pointed out in the communique issued at the conclusion of the conference this afternoon. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) issued a news release last September on this subject he said there were three important components of any family planning program, namely, research, information and training.
I want to say something about what the welfare branch is doing and is capable of doing in each of these areas; also about the support for services on a shared-cost basis with the provinces which is possible under the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan. With regard to the underlying philosophy of federal programs, since public welfare programs are, unfortunately, often associated with notions of pressure and coercion, it is important to emphasize the philosophy behind federal family planning policy. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare has stated, its essential purpose is to help make family planning information and services available to all who want them so that all Canadians can exercise free individual choice in the practice of family planning. It is fully consistent with the goal suggested by the Family Planning Federation of Canada in its brief presented to the Special Senate Committee on Poverty on February 10, 1970.
This goal is to "democratize" family planning, as one way of reducing poverty in Canada, by offering the poor the resources already available to the non-poor from private sources. In its positive aspects it is designed to ensure that every child is a wanted child. As the federation's brief points out, family planning is now a resource crucial to the ability of a family to cope with its environment. If every child is a wanted child, children are better cared for both physically and emotionally. Mothers are subjected to lower health risks if births are spaced carefully. The assurance that another child will not come before it is wanted helps couples plan other material and non-material aspects of their lives with more confidence.
Moreover, family planning, in its broadest sense and the sense in which it is used here can assist some of the childless to bear wanted babies. In summary, the knowledge and means to space and plan the coming of children in relation to family resources is essential to happy, healthy, responsible family life.
It is common knowledge that on the average the least educated have the largest number of children and the lowest incomes. More significant is the evidence of personal and family breakdowns where resources are not adequate to meet needs. A study of multiproblem poor families in Vancouver, cited by the family planning federation's brief, found that such families were larger than the Canadian average by 1.1 persons and that one-third of these families had one or more children over 15 years of age living apart from the family for reasons of adoption, placement, emotional treatment or delinquency.
The need for family planning programs cannot, therefore, be dismissed simply by pointing out that crude birth rate figures in Canada are declining. Moreover, the weight of evidence is against the view sometimes stated that the poor have more children simply because they want them. A study undertaken in the United States, also cited in the family planning federation's brief, found that 17 per cent of births to the non-poor were unwanted, compared with 26 per cent among the near poor and 42 per cent among the poor.
These findings are validated by the sometimes dramatic results, in terms of declining birth rates, when family planning programs are properly presented in terms acceptable to poor people. The attitude of the federal government to family planning is consistent with the following principle embodied in a "World Leaders' Declaration on Population" made public by the Secretary General of the United Nations on Human Rights Day, December 11, 1967:
The great majority of parents desire to have the knowledge and means to plan their families; the opportunity to decide the number and spacing of children is a basic human right.
Although the provision of a family planning service is most often the responsibility of the health authorities, there is an important role for welfare services, both public and voluntary, in the over-all program. The prescription by a doctor of a specific means of family planning is often the last link in a long chain and even the beginning of a new one to help people to continue to plan. Welfare services often play a crucial role in getting people to the point of acceptance and continuance of family planning services. Effective partnership between health and welfare services is therefore imperative.
Experience has shown that poor women are especially receptive to family planning programs immediately after giving birth to a child. Where such women are known to welfare agencies, the latter can play an essential role in maintaining their interest in family planning and in returning for necessary medical service. Unmarried mothers constitute a high priority group which is the particular concern of public welfare agencies. Experiments in the United States have shown that information and advice on family planning, as part of a carefully

December 10, 1970

constructed social rehabilitation program, can have dramatic results in reducing the proportion of subsequent out-of-wedlock pregnancies in such a group.
I come now to research and the capability of national welfare grants. I want to say something about the contribution to research in the field of family planning that national welfare grants can and do make. Welfare research grants are offered as part of the national welfare grants program designed to assist in the development and strengthening of welfare services in Canada. Such grants are available to provincial welfare departments, municipal welfare agencies, voluntary welfare services, welfare councils, welfare treatment institutions, schools of social work, universities and research organizations in Canada, but not to individuals. Grants are made for one fiscal year and may be renewed on the basis of satisfactory progress. Priority is given to projects holding promise of producing new knowledge of general interest to the welfare constituency and wide application to welfare services, and to projects which advance the methodology of social research applied to welfare problems or services.
Applications for welfare research grants are appraised by staff of the Department of National Health and Welfare and, when warranted, by other interested federal and provincial government departments. They are then referred to a research advisory committee which makes recommendations on the application to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The following guidelines are used in the relationship between the organizations applying for a welfare research grant and the direction of the program:
[DOT] (5w:50 p.m.)
1.	An application for a welfare research grant and the documentation attached to such application is confidential.
2.	The applicant retains the authorship of copyright of a project application.
(a)	The department is not at liberty to disclose the content of a research project application other than its purpose and objectives in general methodology once a project has been approved.
(b)	The organization receiving a research grant retains the liberty of disclosing the content of an approved research project grant and is encouraged to do so when information is sought.
3.	A welfare research grant is made on the following conditions: That on completion of the project, the Department of National Health and Welfare will be furnished with five copies of a final report; that one or more copies may be placed in the library of the department for unrestricted library use; that except as may be subsequently agreed, publication or general distribution of the report and condensation thereof is the responsibility of the grantee agency and/or principal investigator; that in any such publication acknowledgement will be made of the assistance rendered by the department under the national welfare grants program; that in any such publication the author or authors will state explicitly that the
Family Planning Centres
findings or opinion expressed are those of the author or authors.
In reference to research relative to family planning I might point to the "Project de recherche aupres du milieu defavorise urbain Quebecois" by Le Centre de Planification familiale du Quebec Inc., Montreal. The object of this project is to determine the various family cultural variables peculiar to deprived milieux which have an influence on attitudes and behaviour with regard to fecundity in order to build a model of these cultural determinants and, from this knowledge, to determine the conditions necessary for family planning to succeed in this milieu.
This project was initially founded in 1969-70 and a new grant was awarded in 1970-71 to allow the continuation of the project. As I have already said, a research grant can only be awarded on a yearly basis, and a research project can receive another grant in a succeeding year if warranted by its progress during the previous year. An application is required for each fiscal year for the total duration of a research project. The project I have mentioned is not yet completed and the report is not expected before the summer of 1971.
Another project is titled "Causes et consequences demographiques, economiques et sociales de la pratique de la methode thermique de regulation des naissances" undertaken by the departement de sociologie de l'Univer-site Laval. The project is not yet completed; consequently, no report is yet available.
The purpose of this project was to explore to what extent the seeking of increased material well-being is combined with cultural and moral motivations of the couples interviewed in wanting to restrict the size of their families. The survey seeks to answer the implied question: What type of birth control is suitable to what level of education, and at what levels of education are people prepared to apply different types of of methods?
The national welfare grants programs can also provide funds for demonstration projects and professional training. Such projects might include a demonstration of the most effective means of spreading information about family planning to the public as an example. In these ways the national welfare grants have some capability in all three aspects of the program in family planning of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Now I should like to turn my attention to the capabilities of the Canada Assistance Plan in respect of family planning. The provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan are sufficiently broad and flexible that it can now contribute to the training, public information and research aspects of the federal program of family planning announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on September 18, 1970. These contributions are made possible by two provisions in the plan which constitute major innovations in federal-provincial shared-cost assistance programs.
For the first time it authorizes federal contributions to health care, administrative and welfare service costs of provincial welfare programs. Health care services, the

December 10, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
costs of which may be shared when supplied to needy persons, are broadly defined to mean medical, surgical, obstetrical, optical, dental and nursing services and include drugs, dressings, prosthetic appliances and any other items commonly associated with such services. Under this provision the federal government is prepared to reimburse the provinces 50 per cent of the cost of contraceptive medication and devices prescribed for persons who have met a test of need.
The cost of the services of physicians and related medical personnel involved in the provision of family planning services as part of the health care program for needy people is shared on the same basis, to the extent that these are not supplied through other federal-provincial programs such as hospital insurance and medicare. All provinces are using this provision to some extent and it is expected that as a result of recent federal initiatives increasing use will be made of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair to resume same at eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (Langelier) that Bill C-205, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in participating in the debate on the motion for second reading of Bin C-205, I would first like to tell the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) that I recognize that the state is striving to promote industrial growth in Canada. When I see the big smile on his face, I am satisfied that his hopes are even greater than he said this afternoon during his rather brief statement.
I hope that the results of this measure will match the hopes expressed by the minister. Nevertheless I have grave doubts as to the expected results, because we are saddled with an economic system whose shortcomings prevent it from being attuned to present-day realities.

If the present economic system was truly ideal and efficient, we would not be continuously faced with problems of unemployment, malnutrition and poverty in the midst of affluence, except perhaps in periods of wars, when these problems are exceptional. When we have reached a situation where the state has to inject millions of dollars in industries, this is certainly not an indication that our economic system is healthy. This does not mean however that I am opposed to the bill now under discussion, but I would like to show that we must also use other means, take other measures and implement economic reforms if we are to get still more beneficial results for the people, and especially for the working class.
Major Douglas, a Scotch engineer, had found the major defect in our economic system more than 50 years ago, and summed up his philosophy in this quite simple sentence: Production does not finance consumption. In other words, there is not enough money put into circulation within a production cycle to enable consumers to purchase all the goods produced. It has been proven. He was right. Let us consider the facts.
During World War I, that is the 1914-1919 War, in order to finance the Canadian war effort, the government had put money, which is purchasing power, in the hands of the Canadian consumers since many workers were getting paid for manufacturing armaments such as machine-guns, tanks, etc. Consequently, the population's demand for consumer goods increased. Plants producing civilian goods were in full operation. In those days, Canada experienced an unprecedented industrial boom.
I was then living in the Eastern Townships and I remember that all the manpower available was being recruited for work related to the development of our natural resources. In fact, not only was there no unemployment but even school children had jobs.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
After the 1919-1929 decade, mass purchasing power dropped dramatically and we faced an economic crisis. What happened during that recession?
A great many industries went bankrupt, since lack of solvent buyers for their production forced them to close down, and they were taxed with bad management.
The same thing happened to farmers, many of whom had made commitments during 1918-19 when agricultural products were at their highest. When the subsequent period placed them in an impossible position, they were taxed with incompetence.
During the period from 1929 to 1939, unemployment stood at a record figure. In turn, the unemployed were upbraided for their heartlessness and their laziness. We saw some of them working for 20 cents a day. They were called "the 20 centers". I lived through those t mes that we are about to live again. I refer to this situation in order that we may learn a lesson, not to be plunged into similar circumstances.
I remember that at that time, when a young man was courting a young lady, he could not make serious plans
December 10, 1970

for the future. He would merely say: Miss, if you are thinking of your future, do not rely on me for the time being, I am one of the "20 centers".
Suddenly the situation changed. War broke out in 1939. Governments asked Canadians to make a global war effort. Money reappeared. The federal government never said that it did not have any money, that the war effort had to be stopped. On the contrary! Money was flowing in larger amounts than ever and the situation changed completely.
Inefficient and poor managers as farmers were during the economic recession, all of a sudden they became efficient and good managers despite all the wartime restrictions. Why? Because they found buyers for their products, consumers with a purchasing power in keeping with their needs. The same thing happened to industrialists who went bankrupt during the crisis. Most of them recovered because their industries operating with full output, they became good managers. The "lazy" unemployed of the crisis period, the "20 centers", became the best workers and the best soldiers in the world. Everywhere in the world, the value of Canadian people was praised.
Canadians became so productive that the government had to resort to rationing in order to curb their desires, because they had acquired then greater purchasing power. After the war, it was necessary to rebuild. The money supply in the hands of consumers was more considerable and we experienced an economic boom from 1945 to 1956.
Since that date, we have been moving towards a situation of hardship in the midst of affluence. The situation is even worse that it was in the period from 1929 to 1939, because of automation. And, without our present social security legislation, we would have a depression of such proportions that it would seriously threaten our social structures.
Manufacturers are looking for consumers for their products and, when they succeed, they feel very happy.
A press release issued by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, on December 1, 1970 had this to say about the matter:
Sales totalling $3,160,000 were made on the spot because of Canada's participation in the Interstoff textile clothing Fair held in Frankfurt, Germany, from November 17 to November 20. That was the first time that Canada was represented at this Fair. The 12 Canadian textile firms who took part in this event expect additional sales worth $13 million.
So, in Canada as elsewhere we are looking for consumers with purchasing power. Unfortunately, this class of consumers is becoming more and more scarce, and this is why many industries are slowing down, which inevitably leads to unemployment.
I know that people will find employment in industries, out such employment will be stable only if the industries sell their products and if their operations are profitable.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has explained in a statement given out after
Regional Development Incentives Act the first reading of Bill C-205, entitled "An Act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act", that this legislation stipulates and I quote:
1)	that loans could be guaranteed for new plants in economically under-developed regions by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion;
2)	that incentives will apply to businesses other than manufacturing and processing companies, and finally,
3)	that special grants will be paid in certain cases.
I will refer to that later on.
Why are those new provisions enforced? Simply because the rate of unemployment is high and businesses wishing to expand are prevented from doing so due to lack of capital.
Someone should have wondered why the unemployment rate is so high, why available capital is so scarce or why people are afraid to invest capital. This is merely due to the fact that the present financing system does not give enough money to consumers to purchase the available production and at the same time finance the development of new industries.
This is what I want to explain. I would like to suggest new formulas to finance businesses, financing which would not derive from the profits of promoters or the savings of individuals.
I have consulted with someone more competent than I in this field, in order to give the House valid explanations and suggestions likely perhaps to help the government in solving one of the most serious problems now, the high rate of unemployment particularly in eastern Canada.
What causes the deficit in the money flow to consumers? This is a very important question and it is not easy to answer it. But once the answer is found, it is possible to suggest a solution likely to keep the balance between the amount of prices attached to goods and the total amount of the purchasing power available to consumers.
Industry's sole source of revenue is the money that comes out of the consumers' pockets, and the latter have none other than that of industry, commerce or finance.
This means that all costs ranging from primary production down to consumption, through processing industries, wholesalers and retailers, all these costs, as well as all profits which have been added to actual costs and which have accumulated to make the final price, must be recovered through the price charged to the consumer.
On the other hand, the consumer cannot pay for the products that he buys more money than he has received from producers and distributors. Therefore, if through wages, salaries, dividends or otherwise, industry gives back to the consumers in an aggregate form all the money it gets from them and if the consumers spend all that money to buy products from industry, the latter can operate indefinitely, through the sale of a given amount of goods at a given price level. So any overproduction or any sale at a loss of products or any underconsumption becomes impossible.

December 10, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act [DOT] (8.20 p.m.)
What I said before is fairly obvious. There is indeed a cycle in the flow of money, from producers to consumers and from consumers to producers. Moreover, everybody knows that that flow is not supplied through providential means. Nobody expects money to grow on trees. Nevertheless, profit-minded businessmen increase their production in the candid belief that through some miracle, industry will succeed in getting from consumers more money than it has given them in the course of production. And if, by chance, money should not come back, they say it is due to consumers' opposition, to a psychological reaction on the part of buyers or to any other reason without giving the real one, namely that the buyers are unable to pay for more products without getting more money.
Any businessman will probably say that the financing of production and distribution of produced goods automatically provides consumers with enough money to buy the produced goods. But such is not the case.
Does the manufacturer want to give in wages, salaries, rents, dividends and otherwise as much money as the consumers will pay for the products? To act this way, one would have to be a philanthropist. The good businessman, if he wants to succeed, will want to receive, through the sale of products, more money than he has spent for production. That is quite normal.
In other words, enough money is not put into the hands of consumers to allow them to buy all the products on the market. Does anyone know somebody who would act otherwise? Is it possible to imagine a single businessman who would have as his goal to spend as much money in a given period of production as he wants to get from consumers?
Among our acquaintances, there are persons engaged in all kinds of businesses. Each of them takes all possible precautions in order to maintain his costs lower than his selling prices. Each of them has to do that. None of them has any other choice.
All businessmen, as long as they succeed, do not give consumers enough money to allow them to buy all the products at marked prices. Thus no business can prosper unless it shows a profit, unless it receives from consumers more money than it distributes them.
In theory, the deficit could be filled if all savings were used to increase equipment and public works, because then they would come back to the consumers, without increasing the quantity of consumer goods already on the market. In that case, the savings would not prevent consumers from having enough money to buy a certain amount of production.
However, the additions to the present equipment are aimed at increasing production. Now, the sale of an increased production requires a larger amount of money in circulation. Everything boils down to that.
With a given amount of money earmarked for the purchase of consumer goods, even considering the speed of money circulation, it is impossible to transact more than a given volume of business. Otherwise, we would not be experiencing the present depression.

As financing through savings and banking results in a lack of purchasing power, since borrowers must include in their prices the amount of interest they have to repay, some means should first be found to make up for the lack of consumer purchasing power.
It is possible to make up for that lack by dropping prices to the level of the consumer purchasing power, or by increasing such purchasing power in proportion to the existing deficit. Such a purchasing power can be distributed, as was done in the past-though inadequately- through family allowances or increased old age pensions, or, as advocated by the Social Credit, through a dividend paid to each and everyone, so that the whole community may benefit from modern advance and, mechanization, the Canadian people's heritage.
However, you might say that this does not solve the problem of production financing. The answer to this is that if consumers have enough purchasing power to use up production, producers will have enough money available and will be able to reinvest a larger part of their profits.
However, it remains that this reinvestment, if it is financed out of the businesses' profits or through the consumers' savings, will result in a further lack of purchasing power. New capital sources must therefore be found and invested into the enterprises. In other words, new credits must be created. New credits must be granted for the new productions proposed. These new credits can take the form of bank credits at an interest which would reasonably repay the bankers and the financiers for their contribution to our economy.
Even if the interest on those new credits is low, it will of course have to be paid oS with the credits. Now, as the interest is never distributed by the banker or the financier, although it is included in the prices, it results in a deficit for the consumers.
As I said before, that deficit can be made up, either by adjusting prices, or by a compensated discount, or through a subsidy to the consumer, or a dividend.
In fact, restoring the purchasing power, meeting the needs of those who are hungry and thirsty, and helping what industries are unable to finance themselves are so many problems the solution to which may be found in the postulates of Major Douglas. He was a competent man who made very logical suggestions in this regard, and I would invite the government to study them seriously, with a view to organizing in our midst an economic system which will truly satisfy the needs of the people and will allow most of our workers to produce the consumer goods which the popoulation needs.
Indeed, the new act is an improvement when compared with the previous one since it will be used to ensure some degree of organization in the services sector. In this regard, let me say to the minister that his decisions were wisely taken since decent hotel facilities are required in all parts of Canada to provide for conventions. It was also a wise move to think of the organization of recreation activities.
December 10, 1970

I wish to draw his attention to the following.
In the Montmagny area there has been talk for some years now of setting up a marina in order to promote recreation activities and to produce new jobs, which would contribute to the development of the region of Montmagny.
I hope that it will be possible to help the Montmagy area with regard to the setting up of a marina and that an agreement can be reached at all levels of government-federal, provincial and municipal-in order to provide the funds for the dredging of the channel leading to the wharf at Montmagny.
It has become necessary to build that harbour. It is urgently needed. I hope that under Bill C-205 regulations will enable the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to respond to the numerous requests made to that effect by the municipal authorities and all the organizations in my region which are really interested in those problems.
Despite the weaknesses and faults of the bill, I feel that a worth while effort has been made. 1 would have liked to see some flexibility in the framework of the legislation. On page 5 of the statement of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, one may read as follows:
In the areas of Quebec, Ontario and the four western provinces already designated, incentives will remain at their present level.
I understand that the government had to stop somewhere. However, I suggest to the minister to see to it that an industry settles in the Montmagny region and is given the benefit of certain incentives. Even if to do so it is necessary to amend the bill in some way, I am sure that the minister will take my request into consideration.
I am convinced that all those who are really concerned with the problems now confronting us will wish to make their contribution in order to find solutions as quickly as possible. When reading the newspapers, I see that it is possible to sell Canadian products on international markets. I am delighted with that situation, for this is an effective way of helping make of Canada a country which will develop further and enable our young people from 18 to 22 who have completed their studies and would expect to be rapidly hired, to earn a living while making an all-out effort to do more for their Canada. It will then be possible to achieve this goal and bring renewed hope to our youth, which is so very necessary.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very important bill and it is sponsored by a very important minister. If we believe the savants of the press, he is one of the three most important members of the cabinet, sharing with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) that special essence of power which is not shared by others. Therefore, I enter this debate with a great deal of trepidation in that I am looking upward toward a very high pinnacle. I should like to say how very much I appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert), a member whose sincerity and
Regional Development Incentives Act concern for the people of his province and for all of Canada I salute and applaud as I have done ever since he became a member of this House.
I naturally subscribe to the remarks made on behalf of our party by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), in his very powerful and thoughtful address this afternoon. He set out some very cogent considerations. Reflection upon these will benefit the minister, I would say, and benefit the country. My friend called for more discussion by the federal government with governments at the municipal and provincial level. With this I agree, though I cannot help but express a little caution on this matter since I come from the province which has had more sustained and concentrated discussions and negotiations on a bilateral basis than has any other. I have the awful feeling that after all these negotiations and after all these discussions, all the signing and the fanfare, my province did not come up with a particularly good bargain. When I look upon a great development program whereunder Prince Edward Island, the smallest and second poorest province in the Dominion, would foot two-thirds of the bill and the great and vast government of the Dominion of Canada would pay the rest, I wonder at the efficacy of this sustained and continuous bargaining.
With longing I recall the old days when cost-sharing between Ottawa and provincial capitals was on a 50-50 basis. In many special considerations it was 75-25 in favour of the provinces and in some cases, such as certain aspects of the Trans-Canada Highway, Ottawa picked up 90 per cent and the province 10. I am not suggesting that had they talked less they might have produced a better bargain, but I say to my friend from St. John's East that all the talk, all the planning between Charlottetown and Ottawa in my opinion did not produce a most favourable relationship so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned.
My friend from St. John's East made a statement to which I think all of us would subscribe when he said that we do not quarrel with the designation of Montreal. Of course, we do not; but I am afraid that I will have the utmost difficulty in explaining it. Certainly it will not be an easy exercise. It has been my conviction for a long long time that many of the economic problems which Quebec faces are similar to those which the Atlantic provinces have faced, and that over the years Quebec and the eastern provinces should have been more closely co-ordinated in their efforts. But I would be less than candid with the minister if I did not point out that there would be some difficulty in the Atlantic area.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from a recent emanation of APEC, an organization with which I am sure the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has the closest relations. This article reads in part.
Designation of centres in Quebec and Ontario under the regional incentives program deals a serious blow to the Mari-times' industry-attracting efforts, says the Atlantic provinces Economic Council-
In a prepared statement, Harry Flemming, council executive vice-president, warns that designation of these areas_

December 10, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
He speaks of Upper Canada.
-"has made the task of attracting Industry to the Atlantic provinces, much more difficult."
He suggests that designating these areas neutralizes the incentives program since, "when everything is designated, nothing is designated."
We are almost at the stage, Mr. Speaker, where this great country, this land of riches untold, this land that Laurier said had the twentieth century in the palm of its hand, has become one massive designated area.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Give these fellows another year!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think we have to approach this important piece of legislation with a little more than technocracy. Where does the regional disparity concept fit into our study? It comes, surely, from the concept of the nation as a whole, that because of certain national structures and certain national policies, regional inequalities were built into our system and the national government had an obligation to adjust them. Down through the years we have tried to overcome disadvantages through subsidies and various grants. We know that even in times of national prosperity there were regions within the country which, largely because of national policies, remained disadvantaged. We were unable to share fully, or indeed proportionately, in the prosperity of the nation as a whole.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Recently the concept of regional disparity has taken on an extra degree of sophistication. It is obvious, in the historical sense, that through the initiative of the former Premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Smith, the question of regional disparities reached the agenda of constitutional discussions, as it properly and legitimately should. It was discussed when spokesmen for the various jurisdictions within this federal structure met together to consider problems common to all of them and to both jurisdictional levels.
I think we ought to begin this whole thrust toward legislation aimed at correcting regional disparities by looking at the problems of areas which have economic difficulties because certain national policies worked against them and in the long run worked against the good of the commonalty. It is regrettable, alas very regrettable-and this is part of our difficulty today, sir- that the whole country is in the doldrums. This great land, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, is suffering from a sluggish economy. We are today dealing with a piece of legislation which was designed to compensate for the disparities among regions, whereas I submit we ought to be engaged in an assault upon those problems which have been created, I fear, in the main because the national policies themselves were faulty and inadequate. This, I think, is the crux of the matter.
There is no one, I am sure, in this party or in this House who is not aware of, concerned about or without sympathy for the special and economic problems of the province of Quebec. Those of us from outside Quebec quite frankly are appalled that the economic difficulties

of Quebec should have reached such an acute stage before the national government galvanized itself into action for dealing with them. I have read, and after checking the Parliamentary Guide I am convinced that what I have read is correct, that we have never before had in the cabinet of the national government such a powerhouse of Quebec ministers. We have never had so many. So I am disturbed, surprised and filled with wonderment that so acute a problem should develop in this important and historic province and that so little attention has been paid to it until now. Therefore, anything that I say is not a reflection of any lack of concern on my part for the province of Quebec. I think the minister would be ill-advised not to note that there are possibilities of serious misunderstandings.
I have before me clippings from a few newspapers. Some are articles and others are editorials. One headline reads, "Atlantic area fears special status lost"; another is, "Budget called pro-Quebec"; another clipping is headed, "Quebec needs bigger bite of hand-outs from Ottawa"; another says that APEC is critical of the pro-Quebec stand.


Jean Marchand: Is the hon. member
anti-Quebec?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He was suggesting that the hon. member is anti-Quebec.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That is the kind of thing I would expect from that hon. gentleman. Perhaps he thinks that 3,000 of us are in a certain category. He is very good at multiplication. I hope he does not go into a "FRAP" when I say this, but I have been in this House quite a deal longer than he has.


Jean Marchand: Too long.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Too long-that is statesmanship for you! I have no regret for anything that I have ever said about Quebec. I regret nothing that I have ever said about the problems of his linguistic or provincial group. I think he does his party, the government and the country a disservice by trying to exacerbate and manufacture differences which do not exist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If he is disinterested in the opinions of other people and newspapers beyond his own province, that is his responsibility and that is on his conscience.


An hon. Member:: It is also stupid.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am interested in what the people in all ten provinces say and think. It is my job to try to measure my utterances and my concerns against the
December 10, 1970

whole country, and not to be concerned about just one province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to say, in further extenuation and support of what our party spokesman said tonight, that we have lost something in this whole program by a diminution of the regional input to all these programs. I think one of the greatest mistakes ever made was the dismantling and destruction of the Atlantic Development Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: There we had the combination of the very best people in the area, the people who knew most intimately the problems of the area and were dedicated to eradicating the unfortunate circumstances, economic and otherwise, which have stemmed from regional disparities. The outlook of that body was distinct. I think much of our trouble has stemmed from that diminution. I would rather see an Atlantic Development Board than 20 regional desks and I think the people of the Atlantic provinces will agree with that.
So often in these days of excessive bureaucracy we have followed, discovered anew, followed again and searched out various sophisticated formulae, calculations and computations relating to incentives. I believe that I must assuredly come from the most studied, the most examined, the most investigated and the most planned-for part of the North American continent. We have all sorts of studies about us. I have been reading studies upon studies. I have just finished reading a report on the Newstart program. The opinions of a man with a respectable background and his views on the Newstart program are far from complimentary. I am sure the people of the Atlantic provinces are asking, when will these studies end and when will we begin a concrete attack on the problems which have dragged down the whole region ever since the days of confederation?
Surely there are many things to be done which are far more valuable than the introduction of a new, computerized incentives program. One thing which could be done for the Atlantic provinces would be a renewal of the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants. Of all programs which brought new courage and encouragement to our region, none surpassed the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants which were established in 1957-58 by the government which in this House 1 supported for six years. The time has come for a renewal of those grants so that the small provinces by the sea may meet the heavy demands for social services which their people in these days, quite naturally and properly, expect the provinces to provide. There are many obvious ways in which we may be assisted by the senior, national government to help ourselves. It does not require an elaborate bureaucracy to note that in the Atlantic provinces, because of our topography, we have transportation problems. We have been saying this for over a century. The federal government could assist magnificently by helping us to get to the
Regional Development Incentives Act
markets of the world and especially of this continent, the products of our sea, our land and our toil. We have talked year in and year out about a corridor road. A substantial grant to the corridor road would do a great deal more good for the Atlantic region than the manipulation of the incentive formula.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
We have been told in years past that Prince Edward Island would receive a causeway. In fact, in token of the Dominion government's commitment thereto, some $20 million was spent. We have in New Brunswick in the constituency of my hon. friend from Moncton (Mr. Thomas), or near it, the newest and least used railroad in the continent-five miles of track headed for open sea. Would it not be a brave gesture toward Maritime selfhelp to build this causeway?
We all read with rapt attention the speech the Prime Minister made in Saint John, New Brunswick. He spoke glowingly of the opportunities the Maritime people would have in trade with the populous area of the northeastern United States. But how can we get into these markets without good transportation facilities? I invite the Prime Minister and I invite the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), who obviously is Crassus to Caesar, or Mark Antony to Augustus Caesar-one of the triumvirate, in any case-to reflect upon the importance of good transportation arrangements.


An hon. Member:: Which one is Octavius?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I would not like to say who that is. Nothing today is simple or direct. Must everything be complicated? Must everything be planned, super-planned, organized and reorganized? Cannot an assault upon longstanding problems be made in a frontal way? Does it take a genius to know there is tremendous potential in the Fundy tides? Does it take a Ph.D. to get accross the truth that as long as the sun, the moon and the earth endure there will be tremendous power in that tidal force? What does it require to convince the federal government of the tremendous value of developing tidal power? Does another century have to pass into history before they will listen? How long, how long, how long?
Does it require elaborate repetition to get across the truth that in the Altantic area, as in other regions, it is good economics and good administration to develop those things in which, to use the classical economists' phrase, we have a comparative advantage? In the midst of the elaborate spending on the regional development program in Prince Edward Island no way has been found, to give a homely and meaningful example, to get a freezer built for the l\ million tons of blueberries produced in Hillsborough constituency alone. No way has been found to build a carrageen extracting plant. Thousands of men in the Atlantic provinces harvest thousands of tons of Irish moss. This moss is taken to Denmark or to the United States for final processing and then it is sold back to Canada. Would it not be a splendid thing to build ai) extraction plant right in the area?

December 10, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
We have in the Atlantic region capacities for improvement and economic advancement but not, it is likely, the capacity to become a great industrial region. We have already lost our industries to Montreal, and we did that before Montreal was made a designated area. But we have a tourist capacity which is magnificent-we do not have to say it; others have said it. What would the establishment of another national park do for Prince Edward Island? I say these things knowing that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is piloting the bill before us. But I have always thought that he should not be the sole repository of consideration in the realm of regional disparity. The government as a whole must be aware of the need to recognize the disparity which exists among the regions. There is no point in the minister working to overcome these disadvantages if other aspects of government take no note of these things.
There are so many practical ways in which we could improve our situation. What is needed in Atlantic Canada is a recognition that the sea is not a deterrent but an opportunity. There is wealth on the sea, in the sea and under the sea, and our maritime complexion is something we should cherish and develop. I am looking forward to the day when my province and the province of the hon. member for St. John's East will be one province.


James Aloysius McGrath: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I can see ways in which both provinces would be improved and in which Canada would be improved. Why not an accelerated program of shipbuilding subsidies so that we could get over to them with the greatest ease and efficiency to supply the outstanding products of our excellent soil-soil which, they say, as a result of a geological movement a very long time ago came originally from the extraction of their topsoil, since combined with our own.


James Aloysius McGrath: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: So we have a double complement of soil fertility.


James Aloysius McGrath: You have ours.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I want to make a distinction there. As a matter of fact, they have a higher birthrate than we do. I must say I was impressed by the sensible and sensitive speech of the Prime Minister. As to the possibility of trade, how much would it cost to upgrade, to enlarge, to construct a fleet of ships which would ply between the Atlantic provinces and the Commonwealth Caribbean? Is this not just the kind of expenditure which would be practical and meaningful? If these things could be done for Atlantic Canada, backed by the energy of our people, an energy all the greater because of many years of neglect, then we shall not worry about Montreal being designated. We, too, like Montreal. Montreal is ours. The whole country is our land.
I call on the minister with all the fervour one can command at nine o'clock in the evening to adopt an
imaginative program. The minister has made many mistakes, as he himself admitted in his testament or release a while ago. Although he has not always been wrong, I know that he will make more mistakes. However, I hope he will take a little more local advice, that he will not be cribbed, cabined and confined by his bureaucratic, technocratic advisers but will take that broad sweep for which he has been famous through the years, will look at the Atlantic provinces and say that something must be done for people in that region in order to help them move forward.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
One of the minister's predecessors in the cabinet, Hon. Walter Gordon, was going to move the Maritimers, though they had been moving to Montreal and Toronto long since. I should like to see Maritimers moved forward, not moved out. I should like the federal government to take its share of responsibility. We entered confederation because we were wanted. Even little Prince Edward Island was wanted. Bargains were struck. We lost something by entering; we gained a lot by entering. If confederation means anything, it is a sharing not only of the advantages but of the disadvantages. The federal system works, in so far as it is efficacious, only to deal with and iron out some of the disadvantages that the federal structure imposes on regions.
Speaking for the one area which longer than any other has suffered from these disadvantages, I ask for something more than this measure. We will, of course, accept it with all our reservations. We are aware of the special problems that have arisen and we know that something must be done in other areas of Canada. We know that we in the Maritimes do not benefit from having unemployment all across the country. God knows, we want to fight unemployment all across the country. But I say to the minister, let him never reside in confidence upon this bill and feel that the job is even half done.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about Bill C-205 which proposes a number of changes to the Regional Development Incentives Act. I am sure that most members of the House welcome the changes that will be made, some of which I think are aimed specifically at problems in Quebec and have probably been spawned by events of recent weeks. To this extent we welcome them.
However, before I get to more specific parts of the new legislation I want to spend a few minutes taking a general look at the problems of regional inequalities and disparities in Canada. Regional inequities have been with us in this country for many years, but I think the tragedy is that since the 1920s, when statistics were first compiled in relation to regional problems in this country, the gap between the have and have-not regions has not been narrowed. This gap is evidenced in many ways, the most obvious of which is in the income of those who live in the have-not regions. For example, I note that from 1962 to 1964 the average per capita income of people living in Ontario was twice the average per capita income of

December 10, 1970

December 10, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
What is the result of this situation? The result is immeasurable harm to and difficulty for individuals, as well as the loss of millions of dollars in productivity and output. All this is unnecessary in Canada, where we have the resources and the knowledge with which to eliminate unemployment. I have just returned from western Europe. Many of the people there, when they learn about the unemployment rate in some regions of Canada, can hardly believe it because in many European countries unemployment is seldom experienced at a rate as high as ours.
We must also consider that our growth-rate has pretty well stopped. It is at least one of the lowest of the industrialized nations of the world. The other day the chairman of the Economic Council said that because we are not growing as rapidly as we should, and because we have a high unemployment rate, we are probably losing about $4 billion a year in productivity. Government spokesmen have said that this figure may be as high as $5 billion.
When there are problems like these throughout the country, it is no wonder that we have problems in the less advantaged regions. Before we can solve the problems of the poor regions of this country we must solve the problems which face the whole country. There are many problems in Canada because our economy is mismanaged and it is an economy that by no means is achieving its potential. We have witnessed the fight against inflation, with the government tolerating an unemployment rate that is too high. We have found that the fight against inflation has failed because the government has only been able to reduce prices on a marginal basis, at a cost that has been extreme. The fight against inflation has been very much a farce.
I should like to outline some of the reasons for the special problems which exist in some regions of Canada. Two years ago we heard that the government was going to create a department responsible for regional economic expansion. Those in our party who had for many years asked for such a department had some hope. We had hope for two reasons. First, the government realized the need for such a department. This gave us hope. Second, this new department was to co-ordinate all the plans of the government into a master plan. I suggest that the regional economic policies put into effect have become a dismal failure. They have not narrowed the gap between the haves and the have-nots in Canada. As a matter of fact, this gap has probably been widened.
The program has failed dismally for two reasons. First, I do not think the government has the power to exercise real control over the Canadian economy. It does not control the economic levers which might be used. The main decisions are still made by multinational corporations, and the government is very timid when dealing with them. The second reason is that the government does not seem to have an over-all plan to cure economic disparities in Canada. It is approaching this situation on an ad hoc basis, in a diffused, confused and unplanned way.

The government is spreading too little over too much of the country, and because of this the program has been very ineffective.
Most of us in this party thought when the minister introduced this legislation that he should have particularized a program for dealing with specific regions. We were told by one hon. member speaking on behalf of the government that too much of the country should not be designated because the plan would then be ineffective. Now, in 1970, we find that most of the country is designated. On the basis of the minister's views, this means that the plan is ineffective. I suggest that if the Regional Development Incentives Act is to be effective, the government must be selective in regard to regions. We do not have that selectivity.
I now wish to comment on the program of grants made to industries which locate in certain areas. When the plan was first introduced, a maximum of 25 per cent was paid by the government. The minister did not think this would work. Now we are to have grants amounting to 50 per cent. The Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is handing out carrots to free enterprise, hoping that industry will come in and solve the problem. This program is not working and I cannot understand how the minister can rationalize this approach. When the minister appeared before the committee, he said the grant would be 25 per cent of the total amount expended by an industry. One of the members of the committee asked him why it would be 25 per cent and not 30 or 35 per cent. The minister said that if the grant was any higher it would be ineffective and we would only be giving money to free enterprise and private concerns. The minister suggested that if this were done, we might as well run the plants ourselves. Now the minister has turned around and is doing this. I suggest he is either hypocritical in his approach or he lacks the courage to stand up and confront the corporate structure in Canada in the way he should on behalf of our people.
I suggest we need a Canada Development Corporation to set up Crown corporations. Such a corporation could establish industries in economically depressed areas. This is the only way we will solve problems of regional disparity. I do not think the minister's bag of carrots is helping. I do not think it will help if he hands out bigger carrots. We do not need this type of Santa Claus in Canada. If we are to solve our regional problems we must take different action.
I have also suggested that one reason the government has not had much success in its regional development program is that it has not the courage to take over control of the Canadian economy. We are left with a country that is dominated by multinational corporations. We find that in Canada many of the decisions are made in the boardrooms of huge corporations outside our boundaries. If we really are to confront the problems of regional disparity and regional poverty which face so many Canadians, we must regain economic control of our country and have the economic levers in our hands.
December 10, 1970

[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Instead of doing this, we are moving in the opposite direction. We find that many of the subsidies and grants under this program are given to private industries and corporations that are not Canadian. We continue with a policy of continentalism which puts the decision-making process more and more solidly into the hands of multinational corporations outside the control of our government. This means that not only do we lose control of the decision-making process, but that we are exporting jobs to the United States.
We are basically exporters of unfinished products and importers of manufactured goods. Because of this we are exporting many jobs each and every year to the United States and other countries. This is the result of our having a branch plant economy and the government not having the courage to stand up and reverse the trend of continentalism in Canada. But even worse, I believe we are the only country in the western world that sets very few rules in respect of foreign corporations which come into our country. We do not just let them come in; we plead and beg them to come in, and we subsidize them. Under the new department we are still doing this.
What makes it even more hypocritical is that much of the money foreign corporations invest is our money, Canadian money. This money could be invested in the name of Canadians but we are not doing this today. We must regain the Canadian economy we have lost so that we can properly plan it. We must put the needs of people first, instead of the needs of huge, multinational corporations and instead of saying that the needs of the corporations are the needs of society. Once we regain control of our economy we can start planning to really eliminate regional disparity. First we must regain control of the economy, then plan to eliminate regional poverty and regional disparity.
There are many other matters I could mention, but perhaps I should end by asking the minister a series of questions about why the government is doing some of the things it is doing, and what plan it has for the future. I ask the government why grants to corporations, many of them large corporations, are being made without a firm assurance from the corporations or industries as to their future plans. Why is there not more planning, and why are not more assurances being sought from these industries? Why is there so little emphasis on development in these areas, and why is there so little emphasis on the use of Crown corporations or co-operatives in developing the depressed areas of Canada?
We must find a more effective way to alleviate regional problems than by moving in private industry. Many people feel there is not a real regional plan that is co-ordinated, a plan that knows where it is going. Why do we have a plan which is so ad hoc in nature, so unmanageable and so big that it is rendering itself very ineffective? There is a task to perform. There are problems we will have to solve, and I believe these problems are very acute. If we are to keep Canada together and if
Regional Development Incentives Act Canada is to enjoy its 200th birthday, we must solve many of the regional problems which confront us, because if all regions of this country cannot be equal partners in confederation, perhaps the country will not stay together much longer. I suggest it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that all regions have an equal opportunity and receive equal benefits from confederation.
As the speaker who preceded me said, we must share the advantages of confederation as well as the disadvantages. If we do not do that, let us not sit here in smug complacency and ask why there is a separatist movement in Quebec which is rapidly becoming strong. This movement really started after the election of the Prime Minister and this government to office, a Prime Minister who should have experience and knowledge of the province of Quebec. However, the Prime Minister does not appear to have this knowledge and experience. I do not think we should be sitting here and asking why there is so much discontent, when 20 per cent of our people live in poverty and another 20 per cent live on subsistence wages in a country blessed with affluence, abundance and technological knowledge which could do so much for the average Canadian. The burden rests upon the government, and much could be done through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
It is time we started moving, instead of playing games and dangling carrots before the eyes of foreign firms which really are not interested in developing Canada for its people.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) realizes that what he is requesting of the government is quite similar to that which took place in Saskatchewan, according to a reading of the book of Douglas in Saskatchewan-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, I think the hon. gentleman's question might be argumentative.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You
had better read from the record instead of that Chamber of Commerce propaganda.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to make lengthy remarks, but I cannot let the discussion on Bill C-205 come to an end without making a few comments.
The purpose of Bill C-205 is to control unemployment and at the same time to stimulate if possible the economy throughout the country.
I have been expecting this measure for quite a long time. In fact, I made a number of representations in the past in favour of the recognition of the Saint-Hyacinthe area as a designated area. So, I am glad to see that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) has acted according to the announcement of the

December 10, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in his budget statement.
It is somewhat paradoxical on the part of the Minister of Finance, who exerted himself in order to create unemployment, to rely now on his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to repair the blunders he made while fighting inflation.
[DOT] (9-30 p.m.)
Unemployment has spread all over Canada and more especially in the province of Quebec, on a seemingly permanent basis and it is high time that something be done to solve this problem.
The most recent statistics show that there were 476,000 unemployed workers in Canada in November, including 168,000 in Quebec.
Whoever has had anything to do with manpower or labour will easily admit that the misery resulting from such a situation is catastrophic and has a tremendous impact on the population.
It has become exceedingly urgent, since this action has come too late, to change this situation.
If my interpretation of the hon. minister's remarks is correct, one of the bill's provisions would cover grants to firms and another would provide a guarantee for loans.
The legislation seems to me to be a fair one, and can be extremely useful since it will allow many small industries to avail themselves of such loan opportunities.
Many firms could have benefited by such legislation in the past. In my region, we lost industries which could have continued to provide employment, had my representations been acted upon earlier. For instance, we lost a shoe factory. Many other industries have had to cut down on their staff.
The implications this can have on the economic situation of a medium-sized city like Saint-Hyacinthe can readily be imagined, particularly when the same situation prevails in other similar municipalities.
During his speech this afternoon, the minister said he expected that within a few months, this measure would create at least 15,000 new jobs and that nearly 50,000 more would follow later. We greatly need them, in order to create a sound economic climate in Canada and especially in the province of Quebec.
I would not think of blaming the minister for that. I merely want to express my satisfaction to see that, at last, he has taken the necessary steps to make of the area of Saint-Hyacinthe a designated area and thus, remove an injustice that was causing very great difficulties to all the people in my riding, and particularly in the city of Saint-Hyacinthe.
I reiterate my satisfaction to see that the minister has introduced this legislatcon and I expect very encouraging results.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on this important legislation.
Like my colleague the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) who took this opportunity to express his views, I think that it is also normal that the representatives of other ridings should take this opportunity to do the same.
Living in a province which has largely benefited from grants these last two years, I would be ill-advised to blame the- government or the minister.
However, I respect what has been said by some of my colleagues who represent other parts of Canada and maybe they have not obtained as many subsidies as they wished. They should inform the responsible minister.
In all objectivity, I feel it is my duty to express my satisfaction with the bill, and my satisfaction, as a Quebecer, with the grants of which the province of Quebec may have benefitted in the last two years and also with the concern shown by that department for the past and present difficulties facing Quebec.
At any rate, I do not think that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion can offer a final solution to all our country's economic problems. I do believe, however, that it constitutes a means of improving the situation just as other departments must find quickly some other remedies.
I will not hesitate to speak objectively, because I have always wished for and demanded this objectivity. Needless to add that I am satisfied with the bill. For the past two years, I have been the elected representative of a riding that does not have the same advantages as some others.
I took care to ask for the consideration of the minister on behalf of the intermediate groups and the various municipalities of my constituency. I admit most humbly but with great satisfaction that last week's statement recognizing my constituency as a "designated area" was good news both for my electors and for myself. After informing the minister of the special reasons which led us to ask for such special designation, I cannot but thank him for his objectivity in dealing with briefs submitted to him.
It is obvious that with this special designation we will be better able to compete with other designated areas. These grants provide our municipalities with an efficient tool, but they have the responsibility of creating a climate that will encourage investments, of offering at least the necessary services to the industries interested in setting up plants in our ridings.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask for very special attention, since we always refer to "special areas". Of course the Sainte-Scholastique airport project not too far from my own riding will require the Quebec government to undertake certain works to accommodate this airport.
Negotiations are presently under way between Quebec and Ottawa and I trust that the minister will make every effort to expedite matters so that, as a result, we get this designation of "special area", which would, once again, allow the people of my riding to see its rate of unemployiMr. Ricard.]
December 10, 1970

ment decrease and that would contribute to assure the economic stability in my area.
I am pleased that this bill has been introduced, since it is so important for both new and existing industries for which I have already requested special assistance. Now, the bill under consideration will encourage them to expand and modernize and still attract new industries interested in establishing in our constituencies if they are given the necessary assistance.
Some people claim that commercial operations would benefit from the provisions of the bill. I am pleased about that. Special development incentives could be granted concerning specific projects to be carried out in the next two years and the maximum amount of the incentives will be 10 per cent. I do not have to repeat the figures since the bill has already been tabled.
Those important and profitable changes for any new industry will create a more favourable economic climate. The members who represent ridings involved will not hesitate to support this bill.
Again I emphasize this freedom to express personal opinions in the House. I would be the last one to criticize the general policy of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as I consider that the province of Quebec has received its fair share. As a member for this province, I can but express my gratitude for the minister's good offices and for the interest he took in solving Quebec's problems.
I must not forget to invite the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) to think of all parts of Canada. I believe he does. I also know it is not easy to please everyone at the same time, but I trust that Canada's economic policy will be such that it will soon attract investments not only in some areas but throughout the country in order to create a better economic climate.
I trust my remarks will encourage the minister to act, and will have the approval of the House. Indeed, we all want to build a better Canada; we all want to see the government become more and more responsible and spend as much money as is humanly and financially possible, as a certain politician often says, for the greatest good of the Canadian people as a whole.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the minister looks very tired. I was talking to him a minute ago and I was going to be rather critical of his department, but because he is so tired and because I want to be kind, I shall make just a few suggestions.


John Gilbert: Oh, sock it to him!


Steven Otto: In my old age, Mr. Speaker, I am softening up.


Mr. Benjamin:: In the head.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, the concept of regional expansion is a good one; it has worked in many cases. But I
Regional Development Incentives Act have reservations about two points. First, there is very little emphasis in the department on the recreation industry. All areas try to attract manufacturing concerns. They think there is something magical about manufacturing. Therefore, we spend about $2,000 or $3,000 per job to put a plant where it does not really belong, thinking this is the way to build up the economy of the country or the area. This is just not so.
Some time ago the United States government decided it would not support recreational facilities in northern New York State and northern Illinois. Indeed, that government said it would recognize the Madawaska Valley, the northern and central part of Ontario, as a recreation area for the whole of the northern United States and Canada. Therefore, the logical thing would seem to be for our Department of Regional Economic Expansion to help expand facilities in that area. This means getting people interested in building good accommodation, year-round accommodation, because if you are exporting climate, snow and water it is something that is very easy to do and also it is very lucrative. It produces over $1 billion a year and employs a lot of people. Yet when the IDB is approached for a loan for this purpose it replies, "We are really concerned about manufacturing. We will give you so much for a new plant and so much for the machinery." When someone approaches it about a recreation facility, it expresses great reservations.
There is a distinct lack of interest by the department in this field, one that would be extremely lucrative. Therefore, I urge the minister to advise his officials that there is nothing taboo about recreational facilities. If we are to promote any industry, we should recognize the tourist industry, the recreation industry, as a bona fide industry. Austria and Switzerland have done so. Austria, in particular, within the last eight years has made a fortune on it. What are the Austrians selling? They are selling snow in the Alps. They are selling after-ski festivities and the local wines. They are attracting American and Canadian tourists. We do not mind American tourists coming to Canada to spend their money, but Americans want good facilities and Canadians now want good facilities, and that does not mean having to live for a week in a two by four shack. Those days have gone. We must provide first-class tourist accommodation. We must encourage the establishment of schools to teach Canadians how to manage and run proper, year-round recreation facilities. That is where our future lies.
My second point of criticism is in connection with the ideas of departmental officials regarding the location of new industry. In particular, the department does not make use of a great amount of talent and know-how available in our Canadian executive cadre when deciding where industry should go. I am not saying this is the minister's responsibility but I point out that some time ago Clairtone was induced by the Nova Scotia government to move to the Maritimes. If the department-I am speaking of the provincial department-had talked to three or four people who knew the business, those people would immediately have said that it was a dreadful mistake because the manufacture of highly sophisticated sound and television equipment would not be undertaken

December 10, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act profitably in Nova Scotia; it is too far from the market and it is too costly to transport the goods. It requires a pool of expert knowledge. In this type of industry you cannot isolate yourself in a small community and hope to make a profit.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
What happened was that Clairtone pretended to get out of the jam, but instead they got in deeper and the provincial government is now looking into the situation. I think they own practically all the shares, but the company is going down and I do not think anything would save it. I have talked to several businessmen about the Mari-times, some of them very knowledgeable about things in the area around Sydney. It is their opinion that this is the ideal place to establish a steel industry-not just the general, over-all steel ingot industry but a sophisticated steel industry. The coal is right there and 600 miles away at Sept Isles there is the ore. Although I think the coal has a high sulphur content, it is good for the production of stainless steel. But no one has suggested getting advice from the people who know, in order to establish an industry that would be viable. The same thing would apply elsewhere.
I suggest to the minister that before his department goes out on tangents they should consult those who are knowledgeable. It only needs two or three people knowledgeable about business to say that they want an industry in a certain area; I guarantee that within a week they could say what the right industry for that area would be and could give facts and figures. No department of government is completely foolproof. I would suggest closer liaison between department officials and people knowledgeable in business. Canadians would be only too happy to co-operate. On occasions, before an industry was established I have known people to comment, "I guarantee it will not work" and they were right. But they have also said, "This is the logical place for this type of industry."
Another example is the Gananoque area. I have heard many people suggest that without doubt this area would be ideally suited for a recreational area, for pheasant hunting. So it is only a few birds, but do you know that in Alberta they take in about $13 million a year from Americans? Americans from New York State fly all the way there to shoot a few pheasants because we have not developed a closer area. The Gananoque area would be ideally suited. There are people within our department who have evidence that this would be a logical place, but it needs a little encouragement. I see the minister laughing, but $13 million going into the Gananoque area would not be bad. Alberta has lots of oil and gas, so they are not worried about a few pheasants.
It is this sophistication that I ask the minister to consider and discuss with people who know the business to the extent that they could advise the department. The department would, of course, emphasize recreation in the many areas of Canada where recreation would be a logical and lucrative development.


John Gilbert: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. I listened with interest to his remarks. He
mentioned the Clairtone firm which has a television and hi-fi business in the Maritimes. I understand the reason for that was not only to create new industry in the area but to create a market in the northeastern United States.
I understand that one of the main reasons they failed was-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a question. He
should ask the question.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I am getting right to the
question. The reason they failed was that other television companies would not provide services in the northeastern part of the United States. I wonder whether the hon. member has any advice to give Clairtone arising out of his experience, so that they could overcome this difficulty and make it a success in that area.


An hon. Member:: Good question.


Mr.   Olio@: Mr. Speaker, the last thing I want to do is give Clairtone advice at this stage of the game, because I do not think any advice would be advantageous. What I meant to point out was that right from the beginning there was no possible way in which Clairtone, or the manufacturer of sophisticated equipment, could succeed in the Maritimes. I said that this type of industry requires a fluid and constant supply of sophisticated labour. That does not mean a stabilized supply. It requires, also, immediate proximity to the market, preferably away from the New York market which produces ten times as much and more cheaply. If the hon. member would review the history of Clairtone he would find that it should never have been located there. It would have succeeded in Toronto or Montreal, but certainly not in the Maritimes.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, one further, short question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member has a short question which will take one minute.


John Gilbert: Does the hon. member realize that only nine companies produce television and hi-fi equipment in Canada, seven of which are American, the two Canadian companies being Calirtone and Electrohome? If Clairtone collapses, all we have left is one Canadian company to service Canada and develop an export trade. Does the hon. member realize that?


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, I was not discussing Canadian-ism or nationalism. 1 was giving an example of an industry going into the wrong place because of lack of foresight. It really did not matter what happened, the same result would have been obtained. If they had stayed in Toronto, their chance of success would have been much better and then we might have had two or three companies.

December 10, 1970



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Thomas S. Barneii (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on December 2 I addressed a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). I asked if he would confirm in the House a commitment
he gave to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development during the previous session to refer to that committee the draft regulations on land use for the territories. The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I cannot grant the request of the hon. member because the regulations involved have not yet been approved by the governor in council, but as soon as they will have been approved, I will try to determine whether that question can be referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I was unhappy with that answer because it leaves two questions up in the air. First, the question of whether the minister will in fact refer these regulations to the committee at all and, second whether he will refer them to the committee for consideration in a manner which will make it possible for those wishing to discuss the content of the regulations to appear before the committee.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the House statements made by the minister to the Standing Committee on June 2, 1970. At that time we were considering the amendments to the Territorial Lands Act which made possible the drafting of land use regulations. If the minister were here he would probably recall that one of the Liberal members of the committee at the outset of the hearings, to use the vernacular, almost blew his stack. He said that we were being asked by the government for a blank cheque. However, by June 2 he had simmered down and did not oppose passage of the amending bill. As reported at page 58 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 23 of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the minister said several things. I wish to quote some of them. Near the bottom, left-hand part of the page we find these words:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Nielsen said earlier that the word of the minister is the strongest power in the north, so-
An hon. member interjected, "You better believe it." The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development went on to say,:
I appreciate that, but I even offer to share this with you-
Meaning the power.
-because when these regulations are drafted I will refer them to the committee for study.
A little later he said:
As I said before, it is quite urgent to have some regulations because right now there are no regulations. In many aspects in the North we could face a dramatic situation if we do not
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
move fast enough and that is why I am making this presentation to the committee.
I should remind the House that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) has been asking the minister questions relating to the exploration for oil and the regulations or controls with regard to the use of the land by those who were exploring. Following some other remarks by the minister, I said:
Could I ask a question for clarification, Mr. Chairman? The minister indicated he is prepared, when the regulations are complete, to refer them to the committee. By that does he mean he will refer them to the committee before or after their proclamation?
The minister replied:
It will depend on the timing. I think the committee could look into that, and I do not mind the delay, but it will be a matter of timing. I do not think I can avoid facing my responsabilities as a minister of the Crown and proclaim the regulations if it is urgent to proclaim them, because that is the responsability that is vested in me ... But if I can send them to the committee and permit the committee to have a look at them before we proclaim these regulations, I will be happy to do so. As I say, if we decided tomorrow to ban certain kinds of trucks in the north I have absolutely no authority to say to a company, 'I do not want the kind of truck in the north that destroys the ecology', and so on. If they have their truck there they can go along with my wish, but they are not obliged to. The casing of an oil well, for example, is a very important item and I do not want to take any chances on it.
I then asked whether I understood correctly.
-that the minister is undertaking to refer this to the committee if not before the recess at least in the fall, when the committee could have those regulations before them in a form which the committee, if it so desired, could call expert witnesses to give evidence with respect to their views on whether or not the regulations were adequate or inadequate in any way.
The minister replied:
I would be delighted to have your advice on these regulations and to have you make recommendations on whether they are not strong enough or too strong, and if the recommendations that you make are good, I will be happy to take your advice and change the regulations before or after proclamation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of the Territorial Lands Act, the land use regulations must be discussed with the territorial councils prior to implementation. The department is prepared to have these discussions and will do so as soon as the councils meet. There has been a delay, of course, because the Northwest Territories Council was dissolved several months ago in anticipation of the election which is to be held later this month, on December 21. As soon as the council meets, the department will discuss the regulations with them.
After the regulations have been discussed with the councils, and prior to approval by the Governor in Council, they must be advertised in the Canada Gazette. This will give all interested individuals and groups an opportunity to examine the regulations and comment on member on December 2, it will then be determined whether this matter should be referred to the Standing

December 10, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As a member of that committee, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) can certainly make a recommendation to have them referred, if he so desires.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-ALLEGED INFILTRATION OF FLQ CELLS

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, last Monday, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had infiltrated FLQ cells, I got another silent answer, as I do quite often.
I understand that that is a delicate matter. The acknowledged and necessary discretion of the police- and particularly of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police- as well as state reasons can prevent the government from giving a satisfactory answer.
However, hon. members and the rest of the population have a right to adequate information in order to avoid misunderstandings and ambiguities which leave doubts about the efficiency of police action.
Everyone knows that infiltration is one method used by the R.C.M.P. Court cases have often proved it. Recently, the press reported an incident involving a rock group whose main performer was an R.C.M.P. agent. In most cases, such a method meets with success.
This is why it would be most curious if nobody had thought of infiltrating the FLQ. The Front de Liberation du Quebec has been in existence since 1963. Practically everything is known about its leaders. Last year, Mr. Saulnier appeared before a Parliamentary Committee in Ottawa and submitted a thick file in this regard. The case of the Maison du Pecheur, at Gaspe, is another proof of this.
It would therefore be quite normal for R.C.M.P. headquarters to have instructed their agents to act as pro-FLQ.
That would explain why they seemed so little worried about the kidnapping of James Cross. They knew what was going on behind the scenes and what is more, according to press reports, policeman had even rented the apartment right above the one where Mr. Cross was held prisoner.
Why put newspapers in one of the doors of the car carrying the kidnappers and Mr. Cross from des Recollets Street to the Canadian Pavilion at Man and His World? To hide Mr. Cross? Goodness, everyone had seen his picture since October.
Was it to hide Carbonneau or Lanctot? We had seen pictures of them in all the newspapers. Only one has not been seen; his identity is unknown to everybody and even the police and the Quebec Minister of Justice cannot say anything about him. He is the famous Pierre, known as Pierre Seguin.
I am asking a direct question, Mr. Speaker: Is the man known as Pierre Seguin an agent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
If so, we should be told, otherwise certain methods of our police forces will have to be revised and the principle according to which prevention is better than cure will have to be put into practice. We understand the need for evidence before a court but between that and risking a kidnapping when it can be prevented, there is a big difference.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the unexpected and sadistic way in which the Chenier cell acted prevents the government from boasting about the police action which, through infiltration of the FLQ, would have saved this country from the so-called apprehended insurrection.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Alastair Gillespie (Parliameniary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, all members of the House will share the concern of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) for the security of the state. In answering his question may I say that in accordance with long-established practice it is not in the public interest to reveal this type of information.



POST OFFICE-CHRISTMAS MAIL DELIVERY

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on November 26 I asked the Postmaster General to transmit to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Post Office my question concerning the paucity of mail deliveries during the Christmas season, a situation whereun-der the people of Canada have no mail on Friday, December 25, which is Christmas; December 26, which is Boxing Day and a Saturday, and none on December 27 because it is Sunday. All of these we understand. But none on December 28, a Monday, is surely of some importance. I was astounded, therefore, to hear from the Minister without Portfolio on December 8 that the Postmaster General had not transmitted this question to the minister now in charge of the Post Office. Surely this says something about the roster system. It also says something about the communicating capacity of the Postmaster General who is also Minister of Communications.
I do not enjoy criticizing the Minister without Portfolio who has inherited an appallingly difficult task. He has in the House always displayed courtesy and consideration and has the capacity to bring such qualities to the administration of a department which has been so trouble starred in the past two years. It is therefore with the best motives that I ask him to reconsider this lacuna of delivery service. A black-out from Thursday to the following Tuesday is too much even in the post Kieransian age. Mail still has value to many Canadians, although some of the disastrous so-called reforms of the minister's predecessor drove away many customers, diminishing thereby potential revenue.
It is not surprising that there has been protest against these four mailless days. Among newspapers deploring the diminution of service were the Globe and Mail and

December 10, 1970

the Charlottetown Guardian. The latter editorialized as follows:
More money for less service. That seems to be the motto of the federal government. And nowhere does it show more clearly than in the postal department.
For example over the Christmas holidays there is to be no mail delivery Christmas Day, Boxing Day. and Sunday. (These) are not working days for most people, of course, but what excuse is there for no mail delivery on the Monday after Christmas? Tying up the mails for four days in a row. Unheard of. Incredible-
Despite what the still incumbent Postmaster General may say, disruption of mail service does not improve the transmission of mail. The cessation of delivery on Saturday for urban Canadians has proved to be, as some of us predicted, a fiasco. The Davey Committee on Mass Media after a thorough study of the matter recommended as follows:
What we do urge to assist these (daily) newspapers and almost all weekly newspapers is the earliest possible resumption of Saturday mail deliveries. The Lost Weekend has hit some newspapers almost as hard as the rate increases.
On occasions in months past when I deplored the advent and continuation of the five-day delivery, attempts were made to imply an advocacy of the six-day week. Let us not confuse the issue. Postal workers are in the main, and have been for a long time, working a five-day week. We want that for them. We want good working conditions for our postal workers. I have always been very much aware of their problems and sympathetic to their needs. But the minister represents more than the employer side of the table. He must also represent the ultimate concern of both employees and employer- the public. It is time the public interest was consulted and considered.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Let the minister begin to repair the damage in the department and restore the confidence of the public by putting the interest of all the people of Canada first. I invite him to begin by redressing the imbalance revealed in this glaring example of insensitivity to the needs of the Canadian people and a disregard for their right to expect service from the Post Office Department.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Post Office has asked me to give his answer to a question which the hon. member for Hills-borrough (Mr. Macquarrie) put to him on November 26 last, and restated on December 8.
As I know the hon. member for Hillsborough quite well, I am sure, since he has always shown much sympathy for the workers, especially the Post Office employees, that he would not push his argument to the point of taking them away from family gatherings during the holiday season, especially at Christmas time, when he himself will be snug and warm at home, spoiled by his family, in a magnificent corner of the beautiful province of Prince Edward Island. The Canadian people do not ask as much from their Post Office employees.
However, I am told by the minister that even if home delivery is not carried out on December 25, 26, 27 and 28, the Post Office Department will provide wicket service where need be, according to local requirements.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Friday, December 11, 1970