1972-03-10

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the Chair received five notices of questions of privilege under Standing Order 17. All five were related to one or another aspect of the tabling of the Auditor General's report, and to references that had been made in debate to the delay in filing last year's report. In his reply, the President of the Privy Council agreed to sponsor one of the motions and it was unanimously agreed that the matter in dispute would be referred to the Public Accounts Committee.
At the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, the Chair agreed to give further consideration to the other motions although it was pointed out that it would be difficult not to take into account that one of the several methods for proceeding proposed by hon. members had been agreed to by the whole House. To some extent, at least, consideration of the alternative proposals has to be somewhat theoretical; traditionally, the Chair is reluctant to make procedural rulings in such circumstances. I will therefore be very brief, which I hope will not be a reflection on the importance of the matter raised by the hon. members who presented motions to the Chair under the terms of Standing Order 17.
One of the suggestions made yesterday is that a charge against a senior public servant gives rise to a question of privilege. Hon. members know that there have been many instances over the years where accusations or charges have been made in relation to senior public servants. The Chair has never condoned such actions. Indeed, just a few weeks ago I suggested that a motion under Standing Order 43 was irregular to the extent that it contained charges against the chairman of the Public Service Commission. It was not my view, however, that the question was one of privilege, but rather one of procedural order. In the matter before us now, I would agree again that it is irregular for any hon. member to make a charge, directly or indirectly, against a senior public official in the service of the government or of parliament. I refer hon. members to citation 152(4) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, as follows:
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attack and censure, have always been considered unparliamentary, and the Speakers of the British and Canadian Houses have always treated them as breaches of order.
The Chair is in full agreement with the citation, and I would hope that hon. members would remember that the practice is based on simple common sense and fair play. Hon. members will note, however, that there is no suggestion, either in the Beauchesne citation or anywhere in our
precedents, that such breaches of order are tantamount to breaches of privilege.
With respect, I cannot accept the interesting suggestion that parliamentary privilege extends to senior officials, be they senior officials of parliament or of government.
Privilege, as hon. members know, is the sum of the special rights enjoyed by members over and beyond the rights enjoyed by other citizens under the common law. Without going into further detail on the definition of parliamentary privilege, I think it should be noted that it has never been deemed to extend to officials or servants of parliament.
The second aspect of this question is the interesting proposition advanced by the hon. member for Peace River that it would be a breach of privilege to impede hon. members in the discharge of their duties to deny the Auditor General adequate working facilities.
In the course of argument it was indicated that this is not a new complaint but has reference rather to a situation which is alleged to have obtained for some time. This, it seems to me, has to be viewed much more as a matter of administration than as one of parliamentary privilege.
In this respect, the complaint should be considered by way of substantive motion rather than under the guise of privilege. Alternatively, such grievances can be studied by an appropriate committee of the House, which is precisely the action which the House unanimously endorsed yesterday.
For these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot put this question to the House as one of a prima facie case of breach of parliamentary privilege. I remind hon. members that this is not a decision on the substance of the matter but one only on procedure, which is the limit of the Speaker's responsibility in such matters. In this respect, I refer hon. members to a decision of Mr. Speaker Michener who, having refused to put a motion as one of privilege, concluded his ruling with the following words which I believe apply to the present ruling. I quote from the Journals of June 19, 1959, at page 586:
In finding that a question of the privileges of the House is not prima facie involved in this motion, I am making a procedural decision the effect of which will not prevent the further discussion by the House of the matters in issue. The effect is to refuse precedence to this discussion but not to prevent it. No barrier is raised to the presentation of this matter under different circumstances on another occasion. For example, the subject matter could be brought before the House as an amendment to the next motion to go into supply.
These words of a learned and distinguished former Speaker apply very well to the present situation.

March 10, 1972
708________________________________
Inquiries of the Ministry



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table copies of correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of Alberta having to do with the relationship between the two governments in energy policy matters.



FINANCE


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to make a motion which relates to the lending of money at usuriously high rates of interest of up to 1,000 per cent against the anticipated receipt of unemployment insurance cheques, income tax rebates, pension cheques and other benefits provided by law, a practice which I first drew to the attention of the government in early February. I would therefore move, since persons engaged in the practice can only operate as a result of a legal loophole:
That in the opinion of this House the government should immediately bring forward legislation which would ensure that the practice of discounting government payments to individuals, at usurious rates of interest to the recipients of benefits provided by law, is placed under the provisions of the Small Loans Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Selkirk. It requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I am sure he is sufficiently familiar with the subject to be able to give me satisfaction. In view of the upward movement of the Canadian dollar in relation

to the United States dollar, is it the policy of the Canadian government to continue a free float of our dollar?


Hon. Allan I. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would be much happier to allow the Minister of Finance to deal with that question at a later date, but I would like to advise the Leader of the Opposition, at least in a general way, that the present policy of the government in that respect has not been changed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Having regard to the existing situation according to the understanding between Canada and the United States and the other countries in the International Monetary Fund is Canada limited to a choice between a free float or clean float and a fixed rate of parity exchange? Specifically, would it be possible for Canada to maintain a float but also associate with it some restriction on the movement of short-term capital? In other words, what are the options under the existing understanding arising from the last discussions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am now so far away from my studies in economics that I am not sure I can comprehend all the ramifications of this question. All I would want to say, aside from commenting on understandings that may have been reached, is that the policy of the government has been made clear on more than one occasion, and it is that the Canadian dollar is allowed to seek its own level on the market as a result of normal international market forces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have5one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I am sure the Acting Prime Minister will be fully able to answer. In view of the upward movement of the Canadian dollar and the effect of this movement on important Canadian industries, has the Canadian government any plans to put into effect to alleviate the difficulties being confronted by these industries, and the possible very prejudicial effect upon employment in Canada as a result of this upward movement of the Canadian dollar?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I am not in a position to announce any immediate plans that the government has in mind with respect to the protection of any industry or group of industries. I want to conclude by thanking the Leader of the Opposition for the confidence he has in my ability to answer these questions. I only hope it has not been misplaced.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that the confidence I have indicated is the least I could express to a representative of the government from my own province.



UPWARD MOVEMENT OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF EXCHANGE CONTROLS-SUGGESTED LOWERING OF SHORT-TERM INTEREST RATES BY BANK OF CANADA

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is Canada considering the imposition of exchange controls since most European countries are very active with their exchange controls, excluding
March 10, 1972

American dollars from entry into their markets, and there seems to be a growing tendency for American dollars to find their way into Canada, thus raising the value of our dollar?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no indication whatever, nor would I like the hon. member to get the impression, that we are proposing a system of exchange controls in Canada at the present time.


Max Saltsman: May I then direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister. What steps is the government taking to urge upon the Bank of Canada the lowering of short-term interest rates to ensure that the Canadian dollar will not rise too substantially?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Waterloo might agree with me, and I suspect that even the President of the Privy Council might also agree that this is the sort of information which normally ought to be given on motions. The hon. member for York South.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might rephrase that question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo on a supplementary.


Max Saltsman: I shall make it somewhat easier, Mr. Speaker, and ask the Acting Prime Minister whether any discussion is going on between the government and the Bank of Canada for the purpose of establishing lower short-term interest rates in Canada?


An hon. Member:: Don't say "I don't know."


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is obviously in continuous consultation with the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I am sure it would be improper for me to disclose the nature of those discussions.


Mr. Aiken:: Even if you knew!


Mr. Fairweather:: Shades of Paul Martin.


Mr. Lewis:: I think the President of the Privy Council ought to go to the other place.


An hon. Member:: That is what he hopes to do.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: There is one Paul Martin there already.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



ADMISSION OF EAST GERMANY INTO WORLD HEALTH


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister and if he does not know the answer perhaps the Minister of the Environment does, so I direct it to either. It concerns the United Nations conference on the human environment to be held in Stockholm next October. It is my understanding that the cabinet has been discussing the question of representation of East Germany at that conference, which is one of the stumbling blocks at the present time. Has the cabinet reached a decision with regard to supporting the admission of East Germany into the World Health Organization as a step toward its participation in the environmental conference?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I personally have been concerned about the nature of the Canadian delegation and the nature of Canada's submission to the United Nations conference on the human environment in Stockholm in June. I would prefer, however, to leave the matter of the representation of East Germany to be answered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


David Lewis: I shall direct that question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on another day. May I ask the Minister of the Environment whether the submission that Canada will make to the conference will be made available to Members of Parliament and other interested groups in Canada before it is presented to the conference? Also, will the minister's department or the Department of External Affairs head the Canadian delegation?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Several different kinds of submissions will be made available prior to the conference in June. The Department of the Environment will be heading the delegation along with External Affairs.



UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON HUMAN ENVIRONMENT-INCLUSION OF PROVINCIAL AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES ON CANADIAN DELEGATION

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of the Environment whether he has entered into discussions with the provinces and whether there will be provincial representation on Canada's delegation and also non-governmental representation on the delegation of organizations interested in the question of pollution?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be full representation from the provincial governments and from other interested organizations.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka on a supplementary.
710
Inquiries of the Ministry

March 10, 1972



UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON HUMAN ENVIRONMENT-POSSIBILITY OF CANCELLATION

Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary arises from reports circulating that the proposed conference on the environment is in some difficulty. Has the government had any formal indication that this conference on the environment may not proceed?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is our expectation that it will be proceeding and that all nations will attend.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
Since Bill C-215 has been enacted more than a year ago, can the minister tell us why the regulations on the textile industry employees' eligibility for adjustment assistance are not yet available.


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I find it strange that the minister is not yet aware of that question, while recipients in my constituency are waiting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a supplementary.



POSSIBILITY OF INTERCEPTION WITHIN DEPARTMENTS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS' PERSONAL MAIL DIRECTED TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the government aware of any practice or policy in government departments whereby personal and private mail directed to Members of Parliament from government employees, using the internal mailing facilities of the department, is intercepted and examined by departmental or any other security personnel to the extent of opening envelopes, examining the contents and, in the case of unsigned correspondence, subjecting the envelopes and contents to fingerprint and other identification tests?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such practice. I will be happy to take my hon. friend's question as notice and

have it checked out to see whether there is any substance or basis to the serious matter he is raising.


Erik Nielsen: Will the Acting Prime Minister consult with his colleagues, particularly with the Prime Minister, for the purpose of causing an investigation to be made of this matter in order to reassure government employees that they may communicate privately with their own member of parliament or any member of parliament in confidence and without fear, as is the right of every Canadian citizen?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to raise the matter with the Prime Minister and to attempt to bring an answer back for the hon. member at a later date.



POSSIBLE WIRETAPPING OF MEMBERS' TELEPHONES

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has any attempt been made to check out what is happening to our telephones? Apparently they are clicking on and off and there appears to be suspicion that something unusual is going on. I hope it is not wiretapping. Would the minister assure the House that no effort is being made at this time to wiretap telephones in the House of Commons?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely certain that there is no effort on the part of any officer of the House or any member of the House to have the telephones of hon. members tapped in any way. I am sure my hon. friend can be satisfied that that is the case.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that the minister's assurance is a valid one. However, I want him to check this out and ascertain whether there are any activities going on which might suggest to various members of the House or others outside the House that something is going on. I say that because there have been several strange noises on the line, strange clicks. The suspicions of some hon. members and members of their staffs have been aroused, and they doubt whether everything is in order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the telephone system, I am sure we would all want to be satisfied about it and bring about any inquiries that are necessary to indicate that telephones are not being interfered with in any way. In so far as strange noises are concerned, they are hard to control. We had a few of them yesterday and I am sorry to say I made a few myself.


Mr. Erik  Neilsen@Yukon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It seems that some hon. members find the matter humorous but I consider it to be quite serious. When the minister determines whether or not inquiries are necessary, will he specifically direct those inquiries to the possibility of long-distance calls to and from members' constituents being recorded through the long-distance facilities?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member is quite serious. If there is any possible sugges-
March 10, 1972

tion that members' phones are being in any way interfered with, from whatever source, the matter would be quite serious indeed, and I would take whatever steps are open to us to ensure that Members of Parliament continue to have free and uninspected access to their telephones by which they are in contact with all parts of the population.
I am sure that is what we all want and we will ensure that this takes place.



DISCUSSION WITH CIGARETTE MANUFACTURERS ON INCLUSION OF WARNING IN PRINTED ADVERTISING

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question I wanted to direct either to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In their absence, perhaps you would allow somebody opposite to take notice of it. Having in mind the fact that both in the United States and the United Kingdom health warnings are now published as part of printed cigarette advertising, have discussions taken place between the government of Canada and the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council looking toward the inclusion of a similar warning in Canada as part of any permitted printed cigarette advertising?



TRANSPORT


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the Canadian Wheat Board has set a shipment target of some 30 million bushels of wheat to be delivered each month to Vancouver and at the present time the railways can only deliver approximately 16 million bushels each month, will the minister now undertake a complete overhaul of the rail transportation policy in western Canada?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure what the hon. member means by a complete overhaul. There is an exhaustive study under way at the present time which involves my own ministry as well as the Wheat Board, the railways and various producer organizations with a view to greater rationalization of grain movement in western Canada. I hope something definite will come out of that in the relatively near future.


Jack Burnett Murta: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of the fact deliveries are currently some 25 million bushels behind the target figure for this year, is a contingency plan to catch up being prepared at the present time? If so, when will it be in operation?
25020-46(
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister oi Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House when these questions were first raised some two weeks ago, at which time there was an even larger backlog of grain to be caught up on, the railroads agreed to attempt a target of unloads which would be adequate to catch up gradually on the backlog as well as to meet continuing commitments. The continuing very difficult weather in the Rockies has made that impossible, so the backlog has continued. It is certainly our hope that we will be able to catch up when there is good weather. The Wheat Board has also taken some steps to divert deliveries of grain that normally might be made out of Vancouver out of other ports for delivery so that the market can be supplied with grain as quickly as possible.



GRAIN SHIPMENT-SUGGESTED DREDGING OF CHURCHILL HARBOUR-LOCAL REPRESENTATION ON PORT AUTHORITY

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the considerable concern which is evident as a result of delayed shipments of grain, will the minister reconsider the decision regarding a dredging program at Churchill this summer, which is very necessary so that port can continue to be the most efficient port in Canada, as recognized yearly by the National Harbours Board.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his Chamber of Commerce remarks about the port. I agree it is a very useful and valuable port in Canada. Apropos the direct question, I am pleased to tell the hon. member that we will be appointing a port authority for the port of Churchill within a matter of a few weeks. One of the first assignments to go to that authority will be to make recommendations to us as to how best to improve it.


Robert Simpson: Now that the minister has announced that the port authority will be appointed very shortly, will he again assure the House that the fullest consideration will be given to having local representation on that port authority?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have given that assurance on at least two previous occasions, but I am very happy to do it again.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON RATIONALIZATION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN WESTERN CANADA

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the great interest being shown in the proposed Saskatchewan land bank policy and the federal government's small farm policy, and in view of the questions that have been asked with regard to making public the report on the rationalization of the transportation system, is the minister now prepared to table that report in the House so there can be some fruitful discussion throughout the various constituencies?

March 10, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the answer is really the same as it has been. We are discussing these reports with the provincial governments, particularly in the west, as well as with the companies on whom we have relied for a good deal of the calculations which are involved. At an appropriate time as these discussions proceed it is our intention to make the summary or the basic findings involved available to producers so that the discussions can proceed. I assure hon. members that it continues to be our intention to proceed only in line with producer wishes with regard to changes that may be made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question would have been for the Prime Minister as it involves several government departments and could in part touch on his newly acquired training as a parent. I realize that the Acting Prime Minister lacks in that direction, but I will try my luck with him anyway. As a member of the cabinet is now advertising for an English nanny in the agony column of the Times of London, would the Acting Prime Minister cause vigorous efforts to be made to see if some fine, unemployed, Canadian, potential "Mary Poppins" could get a special manpower training course to fill this need?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Broadbent:: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 think the supplementary might better be placed on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby wants to volunteer I do not want to interrupt him. My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I am very happy in this case that he is a Maritimer because my question is of importance to the Maritimes. A telegram was recently sent to the Minister of Agriculture, who unfortunately has not been in the House this week, with regard to the Agricultural Stabilization Board taking substantial stocks of potatoes previously committed by both Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick farmers. The joint potato committee of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick has asked the Minister of Agriculture to take immediate action in order to alleviate the depression that is currently affecting the potato market in eastern Canada. I would ask the minister to ascertain whether some action can be taken quickly on this particular problem.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring my hon. friend's question to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture as soon as possible. While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to answer a question that was asked of the Prime Minister a day or two ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might allow the hon. member for Egmont a supplementary question and then the President of the Privy Council can refer to the question he has just mentioned.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am grateful for the assurance of concern by the Acting Prime Minister and his willingness to act. Inasmuch as a number of carloads of potatoes in New Brunswick have been diverted to starch manufacturing and no such capability exists in Prince Edward Island, and in view of the active request of Prince Edward Island potato growers to have these potatoes diverted to stock feed, would the minister see whether the exploration of this possibility by agricultural officials can be accelerated? I think that is the essence of the matter, at least in terms of Prince Edward Island.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will also add that query to the matter I will raise with the Minister of Agriculture.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, could the minister also make sure, because of the pressure of time, that a direct answer is given to these questions I have raised either by the Minister of Agriculture or by himself when the House reconvenes on Monday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We shall perhaps have to limit the number of supplementaries. I believe the President of the Privy Council has replied in the affirmative to the hon. member for Egmont.



POTATOES-REQUEST BY PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND AND NEW BRUNSWICK FOR ASSISTANCE

Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question on this subject to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
Has the Agricultural Stabilization Board studied the request addressed to it by telegram this week by the joint committee of potato growers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member the telegram was indeed received and studied. With regard to the first part, hon. members will be happy to hear that as far as reporting what quantities of potatoes are held in stock in Canada, in the future a distinction will be made between the quantity on the market and that which is held under the federal government assistance program.
March 10, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT
As for the second part of the telegram, it has been considered-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of this week the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington asked the Prime Minister about the use of the word "royal" in references to Canadian military colleges and, in particular, asked why the expression "royal" had not been used in certain advertisements. The inquiry I made indicates there are no plans whatsoever to change the names of any of the Canadian military colleges. There is no plan to change the name of Royal Roads at Victoria, British Columbia, the Royal Military College at Kingston or the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, Quebec. Since 1948, when referring to these colleges collectively in advertisements, it has been the practice to call them Canadian service colleges or, latterly, Canadian military colleges. However, when the colleges are referred to individually their proper names are used and the full title continues to be maintained in advertisements at the present time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Air Canada is now computing the pensions of all its employees on the basis of 2 per cent for each year of service, will the minister ask Canadian National Railways when it will take similar action and raise the basis of its pension plan from 1 ] per cent to 2 per cent?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will ask them, and when a reply is received I will pass it on to the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the answer of the Canadian National is not yet favourable, will the minister make representations that the CNR take such action?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I shall be very glad to do what I can in that regard.



DISCUSSION WITH AIRLINES OF SECURITY MEASURES TO MEET BOMB THREATS

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In light of the request by President Nixon that American airlines meet to discuss further security measures arising out of the incident last week, and in light of the incident at Windsor last night when Air Canada received a bomb threat to its aircraft, can the minister tell us whether he is also having a meeting of Canadian air lines and dealing with this problem in conjunction with the United States?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both parts of the question is yes. Meetings have taken place between officials of the Department of Transport and representatives of the Canadian airlines. We are also involved not only bilaterally with the United States but with IATA and the various international organizations which are attempting to cope with this problem. As a general rule, our procedures at the moment and our general approach are much in line with those of the United States.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The question does not refer to the hijacking of aircraft. It has to do with the placing of bombs and the holding up of aircraft for ransom.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is the subject I had in mind when I made my reply.



POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF STABILIZATION PROGRAM DURING PRESENT SESSION OF HOUSE

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Bearing in mind the statement made recently to the Saskatchewan outlook conference that farmers can look forward to large grain exports at low prices, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation this session to establish a realistic and economically viable grains stabilization program?


Otto Emil Lang: I am certainly touched by the hon. member wanting a stabilization plan, after what was said earlier about such a plan by hon. members opposite.
It is unlikely we shall be able to find time in the immediate future to come forward with a stabilization plan, but it is certainly my view that protection against international market conditions is extremely important and I hope to be able to introduce legislation along those lines at least within a year or so.


Mr. Baldwin:: Will it be a more intelligent plan than the one the government tried to introduce last session?

March 10, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry POWER



FUNDY TIDES-INQUIRY AS TO PUBLICATION OF FINDINGS OF STUDY

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of importance to Atlantic Canada to address to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the findings of the study of the economic feasibility of using Fundy Bay tidal power to generate electricity be made public? If so, will this information be made available before the present parliament is dissolved?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the body to which the hon. member refers was appointed only the other day; I think it will be meeting in the next several weeks to plan its program of work. It is difficult at this point to indicate how soon it will be in a position to report, and what it will have to say on the question. I would expect that the report would be of such general importance to the three governments concerned that the findings would be made public.



SHIPPING


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The other day my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked the minister about an investigation into the sinking of the Haro Straits in British Columbia waters. The minister told us at that time that adverse weather conditions had hampered the investigation somewhat and that the vessel was still tied up to the tow. Can the minister inform us whether this is still the case, and what course the investigation has taken to date? Can he also say whether any attempt will be made to refloat the Haro Straits? I am tempted to ask also about the port authority for Prince Rupert-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might deal with the one matter and do so as quickly as possible because we are running short of time.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With regard to the tug incident, the hon. member probably knows that a submersible has spotted the vessel. The work has been interrupted a good deal in recent days by bad weather. The on-the-spot investigation is not complete or, at least, it was not complete as of yesterday. Perhaps I am getting a little ahead of the normal procedure, but I would suspect that in this case we would first of all attempt to raise the vessel if that should be feasible. I also have very little doubt that the vessels of the preliminary inquiry will lead me to call for a normal inquiry.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Since a number of organizations on several occasions last fall urged the minister to consider the possibility of taking steps to enable eastern producers to pay the same price as western producers for their feed grain, I would like to ask him whether he has taken a decision about those requests and whether he is in a position to say when he will make a statement to that effect?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, studies are continuing with respect to the question of dealing with the problem of wide discrepancies in feed grain prices as between different regions. I do not have anything further to report at this time. It is true, however, that in the current situation feed grain prices in the prairie region have strengthened significantly, and I believe that with the announcement of an increase of five cents in the initial price for barley for next year, and with the very high level of exports this trend will continue. As a result, there is no immediate problem. The old problem was related to distress pricing and practices, and that has been solved by the very rapid movement of grain into export-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Rud L. Whiting (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the House as to the present status of the discussions which are taking place between Canadian National Railways, the federal government and the province of Ontario with respect to establishing GO-type transit service north and northwest of the city of Toronto?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the discussions are going extremely well. The last word I had of them was yesterday evening. The estimate of all three levels of government involved is that the report will probably be completed in May.



MANPOWER


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. On March 6 the minister informed us
March 10, 1972

that he was reviewing the $40,000 grant under the LIP program to the Scene After Scene Free Theatre in Dundas. Has this review been completed and, if so, what decision has been reached?


Abram Ernest Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A review of the Scene After Scene project has been made. It has been found to be proceeding within the criteria of the program guidelines, but it will be maintained under review as it goes along. This is a project which employs 17 persons and is producing two full-length plays by Brecht and Aeschylus, plays which are presented at universities and other institutions in Canada.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether any other specific reviews have been directed to be made and, more specifically, whether any projects have been denied their final payments or had their original contract payment reduced? If so, is the minister prepared to table that information?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first question, a regular monitoring service is going on, so that there is a continuing review of all projects. With respect to whether any have had reductions made, there is also a continuous adjustment of projects. Some are reduced, some are expanded, but we will do our best for the unemployed by making sure these projects remain feasible. I do not know that it would be of any advantage to table-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we are running short of time so perhaps we might move on to the next questioner.



INFORMATION


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour who I understand reports for Information Canada. As the need for a policy on the right of the public to know is again underlined in the annual report of Information Canada, what attention is being given to overcoming this serious policy gap?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, we are giving considerable attention to that question. There are statutes in various countries known as "right to know statutes". They work less than perfectly. We are looking at all the options in this regard.
Inquiries of the Ministry OIL



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-LEVEL AND NATURE OF DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES-DATE OF REPORT ON FEASIBILITY

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs or his parliamentary secretary. In view of the possibility of an oil pipeline through Canada for Alaskan oil and the recent statement by Mr. Ruckelshaw of the United States environmental protection agency that the United States Secretary of the Interior has consulted with officials in Canada about the matter, I would ask the parliamentary secretary at what level of government did these discussions take place, and who were involved in them?


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary oi State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the statement recently made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been drawn to the attention of the United States government by our representatives.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the parliamentary secretary indicate the date of these discussions and what aspects of the potential pipeline were discussed, as well as the date that has been set for a report on the feasibility of such a pipeline?


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, it is expected that the studies will be complete this fall. As to the other sections of the hon. member's question concerning the date of these conferences, I would have to take it as notice and check further.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. I should have liked to ask the Minister of Agriculture this question, but I understand he has been absent all week on doctor's order and will be present next week. I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery and return to the House. Has the government received a submission from the Federation of Agriculture on behalf of egg producers in relation to assistance in a fowl buying program and, if so, what does the government plan to do about it?


Marcel Lessard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government has received those submissions. They have been discussed and considered and I suspect that the minister will be in a position to make a statement on his return.

March 10, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but, as he is not here, I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Considering that the cost of living continues to increase and that the rise in the consumer price index is mainly due to the price of food, would the minister tell the House whether the government intends to intervene in some way in order to curb the increase in food prices?


Mr. Speaker:: Once again, I feel that the hon. member's question is rather general. Normally such a question would call for a statement on motions. The government may wish to consider the suggestion made by the hon. member for Compton.



PROPOSED WEST COAST TANKER ROUTE-POSITION AND NATURE OF DISCUSSIONS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Is there anything going on these days between Canada and the United States regarding the proposed tanker route down the west coast from Alaska? The last report was of a meeting of officials and it was indicated they did not have enough information to make any findings. Have there been further consultations or active work undertaken on the part of Canadian ministers or officials of the government on this subject in their relationship with the United States?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are no meetings scheduled between ministers. However, studies are continuing on environmental conditions and the impact of oil spills in Puget Sound and Georgia Strait.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What is the nature of these discussions and studies? Are they joint studies that are being made by Canadian officials in association with United States officials, are the studies being made by the United States officials, or are they being made by our officials?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are studies on both sides of the line being carried out independently. I would have to add that they are being pushed more energetically on our side of the line than in the U.S.A.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Naturally, I would hope so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 will recognize the hon. member for Yukon on a supplementary. We have reached the end of the question period but I will allow two or three additional short questions following the supplementary.
(Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean).]



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-SUGGESTED   REFERENCE OF PETITION OF OLD CROW INDIANS TO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the government House leader which relates to the petition tabled earlier of the Old Crow Indian people concerning their land rights. Has the minister yet consulted with his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in order to ascertain whether the government is going to permit the Old Crow people to be heard by referring their petition to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member, I intended to confer with my colleague on this point. However, as is known, he has been absent for the past several days as he is in the west on public business. As soon as he returns I will deal with this matter.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the approach of the fishing season and the need for conservation of our salmon rivers, what action is the minister taking this year to increase the number of guardians to conserve our salmon stocks, in line with the need across the country?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, our regulations with respect to salmon, as announced last year, will be reiterated this year in almost precisely the same form.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question about conservation and the need for extra river guardians this year. What are his intentions in this respect? Last year he had difficulty getting enough funds to provide the required number of guardians.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we can always do with more river guardians on the east coast.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON PREPACKAGING OF CERTAIN PRESCRIPTION DRUGS TO CUT COST

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare may I direct my question to the informative Acting Prime Minister. In view of the leaking to the Montreal Gazette yesterday of a confidential government report on the possibility of substantial cuts in the price of drugs by prepackaging of the most commonly used prescription drugs, can the Acting Prime Minister say whether or not
March 10, 1972

this confidential report will be made public so that the House and the public can study it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about this report but I will ask the minister to look into it and to provide my hon. friend with an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period but the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster for a last question.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint ]ohn-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which I tried to ask earlier. Would the minister check to see that there is full utilization of eastern Canadian ports for grain exports? We all know that the St. Lawrence is frozen over, but there is storage at the port of Saint John and these facilities for the storage of grain are not being fully utilized.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. Generally speaking, I think the record shows that use of the port has been on the increase in recent years, and I shall try to keep it rising.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Before we begin today's debate I wonder whether I could indicate that we are suggesting no change in the time limits provided in Standing Order 58(13). You will find, however, that there is agreement among the four House leaders that no one take any overtime today.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it then that there is a standing instruction agreed to unanimously that the Chair is not to allow overtime to hon. members even if they seek it at that time with unanimous agreement.


Gerald William Baldwin: Anybody who does should go in the penalty box.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Regional Development



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That this House condemns the government for the disastrous failure of its regional development programmes to make any progress in eliminating regional disparities and, in particular, condemns the government for the lack of planning or strategy in its programs, for its total reliance on give-away grants to private corporations, most of them foreign owned, for the senseless practice of transplanting unemployment by assisting plants in one location while similar plants are being closed in another location and for the wasteful expenditure of large sums of public funds without appreciable results in jobs and economic development in the disadvantaged areas of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to say immediately, so that the position is clear, that I and my colleagues appreciate that the problem of regional disparity is a very difficult one. Indeed, it is a universal problem. There is hardly a country I know anything about in which there are not disparities among regions and in which there have not been considerable difficulties in getting rid of those disparities.
I also want to say immediately, so that there is no misunderstanding, that my colleagues and I do not question the sincerity of the minister in charge nor do we question his genuine concern about the objectives which his department is supposed to serve. My complaint is not that the minister and the department have not performed miracles. My complaint is that the department is now in a shambles, that the programs have proven themselves to be relatively worthless, and that hundreds of millions of dollars have been handed out to large corporations with relatively little result in jobs and in changes in the situation in the disadvantaged areas of this country. It is not that he has not performed miracles or has not accomplished what should take 15 years in about three years. It is a fact that there is no evidence in the department's plans and programs of any useful industrial or economic strategy or plan for the disadvantaged regions of this country. There is evidence of a department that has amounts of money it can use and has officials sitting more or less in a passive way waiting for applications from corporations and offering grants on the basis of those applications. I will come back to that in a moment.
I want to make another statement which may be one which removes some of the blame from the minister and the department. I appreciate that the minister's policy was doomed, almost from the start, to utter failure by the general economic policies of this government. The moment the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his advisors were ready to create massive unemployment in this country, the moment they were ready to slow down the economy and the moment they were ready to tighten all the various situations that would have made the economy go, the poor minister and his department were doomed to failure because in a situation of general economic deflation obviously the disadvantaged areas are hurt more

March 10, 1972
Regional Development
than any other regions of the country. It is also obvious that what they are doing with the one hand is being taken away by the other hand of the government, and the minister and his department are therefore in a straitjacket of a cruel, outdated, heartless stupid policy which the government as a whole has followed.
I hope the minister objected to the policy and opposed it in cabinet circles. I would have even greater respect for him than I have if he opposed it not only inside cabinet circles but also spoke up outside cabinet, even if it meant that to stand by principle, to stand by decency and to stand by Canada, he would have had to resign from the government in order to make his point. I suggest that was his alternative. I am assuming he did not do this, although I cannot imagine the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) agreeing with a government policy that aimed, as the Prime Minister said, at 6 per cent unemployment or that the government would be ready to accept a 6 per cent unemployment level. If he did not agree with this, and if he saw as he should have the dangers that represented to his policy, programs and objectives, then I think there comes a point where so basic an issue weighs pretty heavily on the conscience of people concerned with making policy in this country. I suggest the basic problems which exist with this department and with this program is that it has no strategy and no plan. It is a continuing series of "ad hocery". It just has not worked and it just cannot work.
May I also say this to give the context in which I do my thinking about regional disparity. In a federal country like Canada in particular, one of the major duties of a central government is to seek plans, policies and programs, to equalize opportunity and to equalize conditions of life for all Canadians irrespective of where they may happen to live. One of the major duties of this government is to make sure the people of the Atlantic provinces, the Indians and Eskimos in their communities, the people in the Gaspe area of Quebec and other regions of that province, the people in northern Ontario and indeed the people in every part of Canada will have, if not exactly the same opportunity-perhaps that is not possible-and not exactly the same condition of life-perhaps that is not possible-at least will have a really humane basis for existence, with the gap between the poor and rich regions and the gap between the poor and rich groups in this country being constantly narrowed. That must be the objective of any decent society, any just society, any incentive society, any grand society and all the adjectives which have been used by Liberals and Conservatives in my opinion to bamboozle the people of Canada. Surely, this should be the major objective of the central government.
I assume in a spurt of concern, which the Prime Minister has not shown since, the Prime Minister made his only specific commitment or promise during the federal election of 1968. I say this is a spurt of concern which has not been in evidence ever since. That one commitment was that he would do something about regional disparity. I believe he used a more flowery expression. He was going to give every Canadian the same position and the same opportunity in the just society he was going to start building. That was the only, at least major, specific undertaking the Prime Minister made during the election of 1968.1 say with sadness and sorrow that the fact is there has

been no progress at all made on that. Instead of progress there has been a wastage of funds, there has been a lack of plans and there has been a total lack of any industrial or economic strategy.
The other day Professor McAllister of Dalhousie University in a recent speech in Ottawa-and I understand that Professor McAllister is occasionally used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion because of his knowledge and expertise in the area-made this typically professorial understatement when he said:
At present the pickings or threads of regional strategies that can be stuck together have an incomplete and unconvincing flavour.
Only a professor could have put it that gently. What the professor meant, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, is that the regional strategies consisted only of pickings and of threads and that they made no pattern at all. That is the truth of the situation at present. We had designated areas and then we had special areas and then we had other areas, with the result that the department now has areas of one sort or another that cover over 50 per cent of Canada's population. Montreal, a large part of Quebec in addition to the Atlantic provinces and other parts of other provinces have been brought under the umbrella. The result is, of course, that there is no sense in the situation. The growth centre concept is gone, the designated area concept is gone. You have a dog's breakfast of all types of special and designated areas that are given some kind of consideration here or there, and nothing of value is happening.
The other day the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion told us-I forget exactly on what date but it was very recently-that 50,000 jobs had been created by the incentive program. The Prime Minister, during his speech in the debate on the Throne Speech, said that the department had spent $907 million in the three years of its existence and 50,000 jobs had been created. I am not saying that the 50,000 jobs are related to the $907 million; they relate to much less than that, but the fact is that the department has spent over $900 million in the three years of its existence. The minister says that 50,000 jobs were created. Can he tell us how many net jobs were created? Can he give us the figures as to how many net jobs there are and how many jobs were lost as a result of his programs? Was that figure reduced to 20,000 or 15,000 or 30,000? It has been reduced considerably.


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: Only two jobs.


David Lewis: What the minister's department has done as a result of the lack of strategy or plan, has been to make it possible for the Duplate Company to transfer its operation from Oshawa to Hawkesbury. The result is that there is a more modern plant in Hawkesbury which will employ fewer people and the plant in Oshawa which employed more people than the Hawkesbury plant will close. The same was done in the case of Aerovox which was transferred from Hamilton, Ontario to Amherst, Nova Scotia, and in the case of Union Carbide a plant was transferred from Welland, Ontario to Beauharnois, Quebec. Then, there is the Findlay Company in Carleton Place which closed its plant quite recently when the parent company,
March 10, 1972

Belanger Limited received a DREE grant in 1970 of over $200,000, or rather was offered over $200,000.


Jean Marchand: They never got it.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is deliberately misleading the House and telling untruths. He knows that what he says is in error, and no member has the right to deliberately mislead the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And you have no right to split an infinitive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I cannot accept the point of order that has been raised because it is merely a question of debate. The hon. member will have an opportunity in due time to refute or to argue what has been said by the Leader of the NDP,


Murray Arndell McBride: The point I am making is that the record has been clarified in the House and no federal grant went to the Tappan-Belanger plant. This fact is well known and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) should not perpetuate an error.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if this servant of a higher authority had had the decency and charity to wait in his seat, he would have heard me complete my sentence.


Murray Arndell McBride: Why raise it if it is irrelevant and not part of your case?


David Lewis: Sit still and listen. No one other than the hon. member is misleading the House.


Murray Arndell McBride: Try telling the truth.


David Lewis: The parent company was offered a grant of over $200,000. Members will recall that when the matter was raised in the House the minister had forgotten that it was offered, and later informed the House that it was never given but that, in any event, it was cancelled on February 11 last. The date of the question and the date of the cancellation are of some importance.


Murray Arndell McBride: That is untrue also. He made the statement on national television on the very day reference was made to the closing of the plant.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, will you have this man-I forget his name and his riding; I do not want to remember it-remain in his seat and keep quiet.


Murray Arndell McBride: Don't pretend you are interested in Carle-ton Place if you don't even know who the representative is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I think the hon. member should be fair to the leader of the NDP and let him make his speech. In due time the hon. member can take the floor and make his own argument. It is the responsibility of the Chair to keep order and members should address themselves to the Chair. I do not think that exchanges from one side to the other by members shouting from their seats will help make progress in the House.
Regional Development


David Lewis: I think the only thing to do is to ignore the comments from across the way. Grants have been offered to a subsidiary of ITT to start a pulp mill when another pulp mill was closing down in Temiscamingue in the same province. There have been huge grants to povertystricken organizations like Parsons and Whitmore to build a pulp mill in Prince Albert, which is in operation, and another mill in Meadow Lake which the new Saskatchewan government cancelled, while pulp mills were laying off people in Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Ontario. There has been no plan whatever and, I suggest to you that a good many of the jobs that DREE has created- 50,000 jobs for the hundreds of millions of dollars spent are not too many anyway-were created at the expense of jobs of other people in other locations in this country.
I have already drawn attention on another occasion to the conflict of interest of members of the advisory board, Mr. Estey and Mr. Cork, which I think is not terribly serious, except that it indicates the kind of people from whom the minister and the department take advice, the kind of people whom they want to have.
Let me look for a minute at the situation in the disadvantaged areas. Remembering that I must not go over the 30 minutes, let me point out some indicators that show how utterly ineffective this very expensive program has been. Let us consider the investment in manufacturing. In 1961, investment in Quebec represented 55.1 per cent of investment in Ontario. Ten years later in 1971 the ratio dropped to a dismal 40.9 per cent. The Atlantic region's share of employment and manufacturing in 1961 was 4.6 per cent. Nine years later in 1970 it was about the same, 4.5 per cent. Quebec's share in 1961 was 33 per cent; in 1970, it was down to 31.3 per cent.
More relevant perhaps, and more important in terms of human welfare, is that in 1961 the Atlantic region's average weekly wages in manufacturing were 78 per cent of the average weekly wages in Ontario, and in 1970 its average weekly wages were only 75.6 per cent. The gap was growing, Mr. Speaker. The average weekly wages in what is known as the industrial composite, which takes in more than manufacturing, in 1961 in the Atlantic region were 89.1 per cent of those in Ontario, and in 1970 were 81 per cent, which represents a very serious increase of about 10 per cent in the difference between the Atlantic region and Ontario. The same is true for Quebec. Quebec's average weekly wages in manufacturing in 1961 represented 89.2 per cent of those in Ontario, and in 1970 this dropped to 87.6 per cent. If you take the Atlantic provinces' average annual wages and salaries together you find a drop from 79 per cent in 1961, as compared with Ontario, to 73 per cent in 1970 as compared with Ontario.
I am using the Ontario comparison rather than the national average because obviously the national average includes the low wage rates in the Atlantic provinces and in Quebec, and therefore would give a distorted comparison. The only sensible comparison is with a province like Ontario that will not include the low wage rates of these provinces. The same is true with respect to the per capita income in these areas.

March 10, 1972
Regional Development
Now, with these criticisms of the department and its failures, and I repeat that I make them not with any pleasure but rather with sorrow as well as with anger because of the necessity to do this, I view the elimination of regional disparities as one of the major objectives of the government of Canada and of this parliament. The immense failures of this department in this area, and the fact that there is no plan or strategy that indicates any likelihood of success in the future, are the reasons we put this motion on the order paper.
If I saw in the department, in any statement by the minister, in any organization that has been set up, any instrument established that showed there was a movement towards a plan, and that we knew what the plan was, then perhaps I would be ready to sit back and wait for ten years to see what the results were. But there is no indication that the department is changing its policies and programs. There is no indication of a plan or strategy, and therefore the failure is bound to continue. I want to suggest seven specific guidelines, proposals, objectives that this department ought to have if it is going to have any success whatsoever with this very difficult, almost intractable problem of regional disparities and regional underdevelopment.
I say first, Mr. Speaker, that to be effective, both in the short-run and in the long-run, we must develop an industrial and economic plan or strategy for the less developed regions of Canada, but that merely to have a plan for those regions will not do the job either. This plan must be part of a national plan for the use and allocation of resources so that, for example, there is a relationship between developing the pulp industry in one part of Canada and the same industry in another part of Canada, so that doing something in one section of the country is not harmful to another section of the country, because therein lies self-defeating regression rather than productive progression. Therefore, we need a comprehensive set of objectives in each region suited to the physical and human resources of that region. We do not need the building of monuments to Joey Smallwood or to somebody else. We need the development of job intensive industries, of a job intensive economy in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, related to the human and physical skills and resources available in that region.
Secondly, I urge that the program of this department must be directed to building and retaining viable communities rather than being concerned with enterprises whose main objective is the making of profits. If these underdeveloped regions of Canada were regions where profits could be made, the corporations would have been in there without the hundreds of millions of dollars that the minister offers them. They would be there because of the profits available. The reason they are not there is the fact that they cannot achieve in those areas the level of profits in which they, the corporations, are interested. Therefore, the total program has to be re-oriented to building human communities rather than being concerned with the making of profits.
Thirdly, the policy and direction of the program of regional expansion must be changed so as to enable direct public investment, where necessary, or a combination of public and private enterprise. A policy based on holding

out carrots to private corporations has failed in the last 100 years and will fail in the future, for the simple reason that if investment in the disadvantaged areas could be made sufficiently profitable, the corporations would already be there without the carrots. Indeed, I suspect a good many of the plants would have been established there without the grants from DREE, and that the grants have merely increased the profits of the corporations, most of them foreign owned, instead of building up the economies of the areas. To make the program work, there must be direct public participation in one form or another for the social purpose of providing Canadians in these areas with the opportunity of developing conditions of equality with those in other parts of the country.
Fourthly, the policy of grants and loans and concessions to private corporations should be changed so that government grants would be matched by an equity interest in an undertaking for the purpose of giving the public adequate control over the activities and objectives of the enterprise.
Fifthly, all this also means that the department must play the role of initiator of projects and plans rather than merely replying to applications for grants. This is a very important change that must take place in the department. It ought to be developing plans and developing the kind of industry, the kind of enterprise, the kind of economy that is necessary, and go out and do this rather than wait for applications to be made to it.
Sixthly, I suggest that there is urgent need for new machinery which would involve direct participation by the provinces-not indirect, not merely consultative-and by non-governmental organizations in the development of the industrial and economic plan. In connection with representation on boards and agencies advising or assisting in this work, there must be measures to prevent conflict of private interest, something which is present in the advisory board which the minister now has.
Seventh, and finally, Mr. Speaker, to work effectively my party proposes that a meaningful regional development program requires that the Canada Development Corporation be re-organized and reshaped so that it becomes an agency responsible to parliament through the government, with large investment funds garnered by law from corporate investment sources as well as from individual Canadians. The role of this corporation must be redefined to change it from an independent mutual investment fund, which it now is, and which makes the CDC a socially useless organization, to become the source of development planning and investment, particularly in the less developed regions of the country.
As I said when I began, Mr. Speaker, I know of no task of this parliament or of the central government more urgent, more important, socially more necessary and morally more compelling than the job of equalizing opportunities and conditions across this country. This is what we thought the Prime Minister had in mind in 1968 when he made his commitment. This is what we thought the government had in mind when it set up the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It is the failure of this department to achieve anything like the performance for which it was established and the failure of any indication that it has changed policies and programs and developed strategies and plans to promote equality in Canada that
March 10, 1972

makes us condemn the department and the government for the betrayal of an undertaking given four years ago.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the motion proposed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), and before getting into the main thrust of the motion, I wish to remind him that any time you have a socialist government you have a drab society. In addition, any time you get into the position where the three levels of government extract something in the order of 50 per cent of the GNP in the form of taxes, you are eliminating the freedom of the individual in the decision-making process thereby making society dull, unexciting and stale, and lacking in incentive. I believe that our main complaint against this government is its tendency to be socialistically oriented.
Our complaints against the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and this minister can be summed up in three areas. First, he has refused to give an accurate and precise accounting for the $1 billion spent in recent years; second, he has failed to define clearly the objectives of the programs of his department and third, he has failed to listen to sound and constructive advice from his own officials, experts working in agencies similar to DREE. Further, he has failed to heed the advice of Members of this House. I suppose, however, we can understand his refusal to accept advice from this side of the House. This is a common practice of this government but it is very difficult to understand why the minister should refuse to listen to those on his own side of the House.
I am sure we all recall very clearly the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the Throne Speech debate in 1968 when he said:
The attainment of a just society is the cherished hope of civilized men. ... To this end, the proposals . . . will include the establishment of a department charged with the objective of ensuring that people in all areas and regions of our country have as equal access as possible to the opportunities of Canada's economic development.
What is the record? By March 31, 1972, this government will have spent $1,030,636,000 on regional development programs. To this may be added over $200 million in loans. What has been achieved for $11 billion dollars? I submit, instead of the equal access to the opportunities of Canada's economic development which the Prime Minister promised, the depressed regions have had more than equal access to the economic stagnation which has been created by this government.
What has the Minister been trying to accomplish with his billion dollar expenditure? What has he actually accomplished? One of the clearest descriptions of the minister's performance was provided in the report of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council as follows:
The refusal of Jean Marchand to commit the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the Atlantic Development Council's 1981 goals and targets for the Atlantic region is as inexplicable as it is disappointing. ... It reinforces the suspicion that DREE is nothing more than a well-financed giveaway program to be extended or retracted according to the economic and political exigencies of the moment.
When members of this House and the public in general express criticism of the manner in which the Department
Regional Development
of Regional Economic Expansion has functioned, particularly in respect of incentive grants, it has always been pointed out that we should consider what the alternatives might be in the form of welfare payments. Mr. Speaker, if the proposals put forth by the department are nothing more than a form of welfare, then let us do away with the department and combine it with the Department of National Health and Welfare. I believe that is a weak-kneed argument. I think the objectives of the programs should be to create jobs and meaningful employment, not to disrupt the social and economic well-being of areas as well as the job in other parts of the country. We find our criticisms being answered with statements of that nature, and we can only assume that this is a give away program which is perhaps tainted with political patronage.


Jean Marchand: Disgusting.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The most visible of DREE's programs has been the payment of so-called industrial incentive grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act. Payments are still being made under RDIA's predecessor, the Area Development Incentives Act, but DREE will not reveal the amounts paid under each. For the two programs together, $244 million of public funds have been spent since this regime took over. In addition well over $100 million has been offered to companies but not yet paid. The department has evaluated the earlier ADIA program but is keeping the results secret. They claim it was surprisingly good at creating jobs, but provide no proof.
We have evidence that some projects were granted extensions while others were not, and no reasonable or legitimate explanation was given. A firm in my province of Alberta, the Smoky Lake Processing and Dehydrating Plant, complied very closely with the criteria of the old ADIA program but were refused an extension while other firms in the province of Saskatchewan were granted extensions and are going ahead with their projects, although all started at basically the same time. I have asked for the production of papers in this House but the government has failed to produce them. This leaves a cloud of suspicion over the manner in which some of these grants are allocated and awarded. The current RDIA program was designed to provide for an active planning role by the federal government and better judgment in choosing firms to receive grants. As numerous concerned and responsible people outside the department have stated, no such effective planning and judgment is evident.
Our member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has pointed out that of the 49,266 jobs to be created through DREE's announced offers, at least 12,000 will likely never be created. Of the 18,537 jobs which DREE announced as expected to be created through grant offers in 1969 and 1970, 4,404 were later lost when the offers were withdrawn, declined or a firm went bankrupt. Of the offers accepted and announced up to the end of November, 1971, those relating to a total of about 5,000 jobs have subsequently been withdrawn, declined or lost through bankruptcy. Since these losses are often not made public until more than a year after the initial announcement, it seems probable, in view of the experience with the 1969-70 announcements, that 12,000 jobs that have been

March 10, 1972
Regional Development
announced will have been lost by December, 1972, through withdrawal, refusals or bankruptcies.
An. hon. Member: That is not true.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The total number of jobs that were announced and still expected to be filled, if one subtracts withdrawals and refusals, was 44,790 as of November 30, 1971. The number of jobs actually in existence as a result of RDIA grants is nowhere near this total. As reported by the Globe and Mail on February 11, 1972, information on actual jobs created and actual grants paid is not available from DREE. The best estimate that can be made on the basis of available information is that only about 5,000 jobs are in existence as a result of DREE grants. This figure, however, may be a bit of an overestimate in view of the numerous cases in which firms have laid off workers after receiving payments or in which firms have closed a plant in one location and opened or expanded another in a designated region in order to receive a DREE grant. There are many examples of this sort of process.
Perhaps the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) will not mind if I refer to the Belanger-Tap-pan case. The offer of a grant to the Belanger-Tappan firm was withdrawn, not because the company was going to close the Findlay plant, but because they did not do that soon enough. I believe the minister's statement outside the House indicated that the offer was withdrawn on February 11 because the company had not followed up its application within departmental time limits, even after it was given one extension. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this indicates that if the Belanger-Tappan firm had closed its Findlay plant and expanded the Montmagny plant sooner, the grant of $254,000 odd would have been paid.
This incident involving a plant closing is just one example of a more widespread failure on the part of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and its predecessor. The department and its predecessor failed to co-ordinate, when creating productive capacity in an industry, that productive capacity with realistic projections of demand. By paying incentive grants that will promote the expansion of productive capacity without first ensuring that there is demand for the products which will be manufactured, DREE will simply displace workers and capital in existing plants. There is considerable evidence to show that this has already taken place, Mr. Speaker. DREE's policies and programs have had precisely this effect.


Jean Marchand: Give some examples, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am glad the minister asked for examples.


Jean Marchand: Yes; give examples, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: For example, in my province, Alberta, it was planned to erect a $10 million fertilizer plant at Redwater. At the same time, fertilizer workers in Calgary were being laid off. Another example involves overcapacity in the meat packing and processing industry. After one or two such plants had closed in Calgary, a new one was to be opened in Lethbridge with the help of a federal

incentives grant. Look at the tire industry, which is plagued at present with production and marketing problems. Despite that, the federal government supplied a considerable grant to a French firm which wanted to develop a tire producing plant in one of the Atlantic provinces. Such actions can only create disruptive effects and harm the social and economic welfare of people in other parts of the country.
Let me cite another example. One might ask if there is a shortage of liquor in this country. Are our own distillers broke? Nevertheless, we have given $10 million to the Seagrams people at Gimli, Manitoba. I understand that another $10 million has been given to the Hiram Walker people at Kelowna. I am sure that the overproduction of skidoos and hockey sticks in this country will too bring about plenty of disruptive effects for industry. As I say, I am pleased that the minister asked me to give examples. I could give many more.
For instance, consider the proposal in Alberta involving the North American Integrated Food Processing Company which wishes to establish a large, integrated hog processing and producing facility in southern Alberta, merely because the area in question has been designated and because the company wants a federal incentives grant. The details of the proposed transaction are somewhat sketchy at present. I believe the firm has applied for the grant to the department the minister controls. It wants to erect a huge complex for processing between 200,000 and 600,000 hog carcasses per year. What effect will this operation have on the established processing enterprises in Alberta, as well as those in the rest of Canada? The point must be made, I believe, that, in analysing this application the department must consider that, right today, major facilities for hog production and processing exist in the central and northern parts of Alberta. That is where the potential for such enterprises exists, because that is where feed grain is produced.
Statistics show that from the area in which this operation is to be installed, something like 245,000 hogs went to the Calgary packing plants in 1970. This clearly means that there is no large scale production there. It means that if you are to develop a facility which will process for market up to 600,000 hogs per year, you will need to develop a new group of ancillary enterprises there. I fear that a large number of enterprises may become involved in this integrated processing facility and production in northern and central Alberta will be harmfully affected. This new added production facility in the southern part of the province may have disastrous social and economic effects which, in future, will affect not only the hog industry in the province but that industry throughout the entire country.
Census divisions, 7, 10, 11 and 12 which cover the northeastern part of Alberta produced about 700,000 hogs in 1970. This area, as I said before, is where many hogs are produced because feed grain is produced there. There is a potential for marketing 1,750,000 hogs which will be produced in that part of the province in the next four or five years. So, it seems clear that if any expansion is to take place in the processing and production aspects of this industry, it should take place in the area where there is production at present, where it has future potential and
March 10, 1972

such facilities should not be developed elsewhere. If they are, they will only cause major economic and social disruptions in the rest of the province and, indeed, in the rest of the country. I therefore urge the government to heed all the social, economic and geographic implications of any proposal or request involving the provision of grants that will assist the establishment of operations such as those to which I have just alluded. It should be obvious that economic and social reasons should govern the granting of loans, and not just political reasons.
May I continue with my remarks, Mr. Speaker? Before any more grants are given under the Regional Development Incentives Act, basic and fundamental guidelines with respect to grants should be established. For example, we should learn from the experience of the past and not give grants to an industry which is already suffering from an overcapacity of productive facilities and which is producing surplus products, or products it cannot sell. Secondly, I do not think that there should be an element of employee transfer in the matter of grants. That is, I do not think employees should be transferred from one area to another. Thirdly, the provision of assistance should be based on the need of the particular operation that wants help. It seems to me that the policies of this department work in exactly the reverse way. In other words, large companies which are financially able to discharge their obligations have a better chance of getting a grant than smaller companies. I believe that greater attention should be given to smaller industries, particularly in the rural areas, on the basis of rural decentralization. When we look at smaller organizations which may not have the expertise and legal ability to deal with all aspects of the legislation, we find their applications being turned down because of bureaucratic theory rather than practical business sense.
I hope the minister will take into consideration some of the effects of the experience which has been related as a result of the operations of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion throughout the past year. However, I want to issue one word of warning. No matter how excellent the specific means and objectives of the program of Regional Economic Expansion might be, there can be no reasonable degree of success-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but his time expired a few seconds ago.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to discuss economic matters such as the one before the House today, pursuant to Standing Order 58(4)(a).
The motion reads as follows:
That this House condemns the government for the disastrous failure of its regional development programs to make any prog ress in eliminating regional disparities and, in particular, condemns the government for the lack of planning or strategy in its programmes, for its total reliance on give-away grants to private corporations, most of them foreign owned, for the senseless practice of transplanting unemployment by assisting plants in one location while similar plants are being closed in another location and for the wasteful expenditure of large sums of public funds
Regional Development
without appreciable results in jobs and economic development in the disadvantaged areas of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, may I say first of all that in order to have a sound policy and a sound economy, we have to take proper action.
Even if he is doing his best, the minister in the present circumstances cannot solve the economic problem because even the Pope could not do it. To do this, we would have to change our financial system which leads directly to bankruptcy.
The more we apply our economic system with its present structure, the more we increase the imbalance of our economy. It is true that a great many of our manufacturers go bankrupt because they are incapable of assuming their responsibilities. Our manufacturers cannot pay interest at 12 per cent on their borrowings, in addition to capital, a 50 per cent tax on such repayment, and let themselves be "devoured" by municipal, school and other taxes on production. There are all sorts of agencies which, under the present system, gnaw at the incomes of manufacturers and put them in a very uncomfortable position.
In several cases, industry cannot stand up, and this government can alleviate this situation-the minister did find a way-through the Local Initiatives Program that it has created so as to assist industry in various ways. The more we help industry, the more we enslave it and it can hardly survive. In fact, several industries may perhaps manage, provided others disappear.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair to resume same at two p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was explaining why foreign capital has so much control over the Canadian economy.
I was suggesting that it is because economic conditions do not encourage Canadians. First of all, it is increasingly difficult for Canadians to find capital to build plants, develop the country, do things the Canadian way.
Mr. Speaker, there are only two ways of getting capital at present: either you issue stock which is very hard to sell because Canadians have no money or because they are afraid of taking risks by investing in industry, or else you borrow.
Moreover, since governments absorb all savings by issuing bonds, Canadians invest with governments because they think it is safer.
Industry comes second. Governments are forced to get all the savings available in the Canadian economy, so there is almost nothing left for industrial development. This is one of the reasons why the minister has to come up

March 10, 1972
Regional Development
with local initiatives programs, with new plans for industrial development.
The minister had inquiries made and found that there were regional disparities in the country and that there were many parts of the country where it was almost impossible to establish industries, because of the level of poverty. But all those programs that the minister has created to develop industry have not prevented poverty, the running into debt nor the taxes and surtaxes which are draining everybody's pocketbook and are making it impossible for anyone to accumulate investment capital.
We are forced then, in order to accomplish something, to go into debt. In order to take advantage of the programs started by the minister, to obtain $20,000, $25,000 or $33,000, manufacturers have to come up with $100,000. This liability is an enormous burden for them. The large reimbursements necessary are taxable at all levels of government.
These taxes, as I said earlier, amount to more than 50 per cent. A good number of manufacturers have been helped by the department's programs, but they will not be able to survive despite it all. They will be forced to declare bankruptcy because of the policy which gives with one hand and takes twice as much with the other.
We have spent millions of dollars in grants to manufacturers who are bound to fail eventually because they are unable to make ends meet.
I think that the problem is of an economic nature, and as long as we do not decide to settle it once and for all we will experience again the plague that is afflicting us now and we will have only foreign capital for our development.
I have just learned today that, in my riding, there is a furniture factory which operates with great difficulty. It does sell its furniture, but cannot get paid because 50 per cent of the people are near bankrupt. If the economy were sound and balanced, the manufacturer could sell his products. An American firm has just offered $250,000 for this factory. Once again, another industry will pass into American hands, even though this is but a small plant employing only 30 people.
It is our economy which is sick. One can always blame this government, but what solutions are being proposed? What are the causes of all these evils? Let us get at the real causes to cure this serious disease which afflicts us.
Our wish is to see Canadians gain control over their economy, their policy-making. Since the end of the last war, the awe-inspiring progress of this country and firms, Canadian as well as foreign, has not prevented malnutrition, misery, poverty and economic insecurity from settling here.
Economic stability cannot be generated by imbalance. Inflation, unemployment, poverty are economic and mathematical problems requiring economic and mathematical solutions.
National unity is not only a matter of language or culture; it is also and above all an economic issue. It is almost impossible for Canadians to own their industries or their inheritance because land and school taxes are now so burdensome that thay amount to forfeiture of private

ownership to the state and prevent most Canadians from owning their industries in security, including the house in which they live.
And this feature of our economy leads us directly to socialism, which is contrary to man's most elementary right to own undertakings and even a permanent home. Canadians are no longer able to own their own home. A little house costs four or five times what it should. Indeed, a $10,000 home is sold from $25,000 to $30,000 on account of interest charges. Until such time as we take the necessary steps to check further increases in property taxes, which contribute to the rise of the cost of living, we will have only destitute people who live from day to day, without any hope or possibility of becoming homeowners.
That is why the Creditistes are asking that property taxes be removed or progressively reduced. They are also asking that the Bank of Canada provide interest-free loans to municipalities, school boards, provinces, to improve public services, which would push taxes down.
We find that unfortunately the big eat the small, since many are bemoaning in shameful abjection. Manufacturers and individuals go bankrupt, farmers lose their farms, all of it without any other justification than the lack of money. The public lives in hardship, and governments in bondage. We must stop suffering from want when there is in the country everything needed to ensure affluence in each home.
So, instead of managing Canada, governments have become collectors of taxes of all kinds, and a big part of those taxes, the most sacred part, which must not be talked about is precisely the interest on the public debt. Few rise to protest against the interest paid on public finance.
So, Mr. Speaker, as long as we cannot finance our public bodies with money that is borrowed interest-free or at a low rate of interest, we will always be in the red; never will the Canadian economy know stability. We will know nothing but the disappointments, the discontent we now know. To solve the problem, we are moving towards dictatorship, and the governments have to step in with money they take away from the people who have too little as it is.
When the minister grants subsidies to certain industries, to allow them to expand or continue their operations, he takes it away from the ratepayers who do not have enough even now. And so, money is taken from one place where there is a lack of it and put into another where there is a shortage, in fact where there will never be enough money. So, that does not solve the problem.
When we want to develop new industries, new capital is needed and it rests with the government and members of Parliament to settle that problem. If we had new capital to make new investments and if taxpayers were free to make some savings, they would develop the country and the government would not have to meddle everywhere as it is doing at the present time. The government could show some leadership in Canada instead of taking over the assets of our citizens or compelling Canadians to mortgage their property and borrow money to do something.
March 10, 1972

We know that foreign capital is blanketing the country. It is a deficiency of previous governments which are not the only ones to blame, but it is also our fault because we have never taken efficient means to finance our production and especially our consumption, since production is meant for consumption. The consumer is the individual who controls production, and when the consumer lacks the capital, the means, when he is increasingly impoverished by taxation, taxes of all kinds, and deprived of purchasing power, he cannot create a demand for the production which therefore fails to achieve its purpose. The purpose of production is to satisfy requirements and when this purpose is not achieved the economy is not fullfilling its function.
There must be a reform of the economy, a substitution to be brought about by financing property and new production through new credits whenever new developments are involved, in order to leave the population with enough economic blood for normal development of our economy. Its smooth operation calls for normal tools. The government must do its job and this job is not to get citizens into debts, but to pull them out of the hole; and at present, the more the state interferes with the economy, the more it puts us in a bad position, the more the people are facing difficulties, the more the economy is out of balance and we go from bad to worse.
I believe in the minister; he is not Santa Claus but he does his best within the present system. I do not blame him beyond measure because I know that he is doing his duty, that he is sincere, that he wants to succeed. However I am also sure that he knows about the impossibility of succeeding in the present state of the economy. I know he will admit that improvements are needed in our economy. We must eliminate the big economic abuses within our system if we really want to create something practical and something truly communal in order to allow the community to live in its own country full of riches and in order to allow each individual to enjoy that part of the riches that is due to him.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks there has been much talk of regional economic development inside and outside the House. This afternoon I will try to deal with this matter as dispassionately as possible. I know I will probably have to start all over again before the committee, which is quite normal, as members of this House are entitled to know what we do with the millions, and even hundreds of millions of dollars which are voted by this House, how we use them, and whether we really reach our objectives.
What strikes me in this debate, Mr. Speaker, is not so much the attacks made. Of course, there are little pinpricks, little hints, because when people cannot prove something and they think they can do harm to the other person, they resort to such hints.
People refer to the election fund and to the relation which may exist between donations and grants made by the department and, let us say, the Liberal party. I thought it rather amusing that one of the organizers of a recent Progressive Conservative banquet in Toronto was employed by a branch of a company which had received very nice grants from my department. Anyway, you only
Regional Development
have to read the Globe and Mail to see this. It is perfectly natural. Some supporters of other opposition parties have received such grants, which is perfectly natural. This is a thing about which we are extremely careful; we make sure that this program will never lose its worth in the eyes of the public, precisely because tricks like those I have just mentioned would be resorted to by the powers that be.
But for all our caution, and even though I know that all the hints which are made-by people who do not have the courage to assert things-are lies, people still go on doing it. They go on repeating and whispering those things, which is certainly no way to improve the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I have not found one person who was really interested in making improvements. All they are interested in is making small electoral and political gains.
Actually, in order to find constructive criticisms that would really improve the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, I have to refer to documents and speeches of other persons than the members of the opposition. These criticisms are not always favourable: I read last week the important paper written by Dr. Firestone. It is a very serious document wherein Dr. Firestone questions with equal seriousness, some of the programs I implement. I think it is an honest study and I would like to discuss some points with him, since his criticisms differ from what I have been hearing since this morning.
What have we been actually hearing since this morning? Let us consider the gentleman who is deemed to have reached, intellectually speaking at least, a fairly high level; I refer to the leader of the New Democratic party, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). What did he tell us? He touched on general topics and when he came to specific cases, his figures were all wrong. He claims in effect that economic development requires the establishment of humane societies. When I hear such opinions, I am all at sea.
He spoke about grants and means of destruction. Anyhow, this is the usual way that the department is spoken of. Before we come to these cases let us simply state that almost one third of my budget is earmarked for grants. The remaining two thirds are spent on joint programs with the provinces, either under ARDA or FRED. We discuss things with the provinces and the municipalities in order to carry out real projects.
However, all you hear is talks about grants. It would seem like the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has nothing to do but give grants to large companies, especially American companies. This is the criticism the opposition has been directing at the department which set out to reduce regional disparities as its objective.
So, here is the great theorician who is supposed to be very much aware of those problems, who is supposed to have a sophisticated social conscience, making this very artificial criticism that we must form human societies, that we must not necessarily give grants to large companies, especially large foreign companies. On that point, of course, there were virulent attacks saying, why give grants to Rayonier Quebec Inc. (ITT) in Port-Cartier,

March 10, 1972
Regional Development
when another mill is closing down in Kippewa, Temiscamingue? Is that a program that makes sense? To create jobs somewhere and knock some off somewhere else! It is certainly impressive, Mr. Speaker. However, the facts are less dramatic than that.
The Canadian International Paper company in Kippewa, Temiscamingue, decided to close down because for a great number of years it has been coming up with a deficit and all its projections for the future point to deficits. It does not even want to modernize its mill. The mill of Rayonier Quebec Inc. (ITT) in Port-Cartier just received a grant, It will starting operating only in 1974. So, the CIP in Kippewa, Temiscamingue, is closing down in May, because in May 1974, another mill will start operating because they have a different market and are supposed to sell all their pulp in Europe. Here is the first great scandal.
I find this scandalous. I met the president of the CIP, Mr. Monze, I tried to convince him by telling him, listen, what if we tried to help you modernize, etc. He replied: "No, transportation costs are absolutely prohibitive, we cannot keep on operating the mill. If you want it, it is yours."
The member for York South said that it is because a grant was paid to Rayonier Quebec Inc. that the other industry is closing down. That is the first great scandal of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
The second has to do with Duplate of Canada Ltd, which left Oshawa for Hawkesbury. This case is not quite perfect as these are two Ontario municipalities. One of them should have been in Quebec for the case to be more perfect. Anyway, those are two Ontario municipalities and this took place under the old industrial incentives program which was amended because we had no freedom of movement. When a company settled down in a designated area it had to be given the grant provided for in the act. The minister was powerless, but the Department of Regional Economic Expansion came under strong attack. The act was amended and even the NDP members were scared: the discretion given to the minister might be used for patronage. They are convinced of that.
We wanted to change the act because we did not want such things to happen, that is to say that companies would move out and settle elsewhere to obtain government grants. This is a strong argument against the Department of Regional Economic Expansion!
Another is Michelin Tires Manufacturing Company of Canada Limited. The situation is identical. The grants paid to this company were paid under the old act. They had been asked for by Nova Scotia; the provincial government insisted on it, helped this company and I had no choice: I had to pay that grant as provided for in the act. This company has nevertheless created 1,800 jobs in Nova Scotia.
Let an hon. member from Nova Scotia attack that in his province. Let him go there and do so. It would be absurd.
Similarly, hon. members from Alberta will not be able to rail in Grand Prairie against the Procter & Gamble mill. Let them try if they have enough courage.
In any event, the Michelin affair is yet another scandal. That was under the previous act and we had no latitude.

There is another case, and it is a perfect one, because it involves two provinces. It is that of Aerovox Canada Ltd. which moved from Hamilton to Amherst, Nova Scotia. Factories shut down in Hamilton. The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) will surely remember that: Factories are closed in Hamilton in order to create jobs in Nova Scotia.
What is the good of that? And $235,000 went for that. There is no sense in running a department that way.
So where is the truth, Mr. Speaker? It is so simple. Anybody calling my office over the phone would have been given that information. Only they do not want to know the truth, because it is annoying. The truth is that we heard one day that Aerovox Canada Limited had decided to close its plant in Hamilton, that is all. They did not even ask for the department's permission. They decided to meet the needs of the Canadian market with their American plants. The first thing we knew was that the plant was closed. We thought maybe we could get them to stay in Canada. And so we engaged in discussions with the company as to the possibility of a grant, not so that they could leave Hamilton and settle in Nova Scotia, but to prevent them from leaving Canada and to provide for jobs here in Canada. And that is how we came to offer a grant to the Aerovox Canada Limited Company.
So people cry shame again: The department created jobs somewhere in order to eliminate jobs elsewhere. The facts were available. A phone call to my office would have been enough to know what had happened. There would have been no need for a debate. But people wished to cry shame.
Other speeches were delivered but I will not say anything about them at this stage. There is still a much better example but it would be hard to deal with it, for as far as politics are concerned, dealing with it now would be playing with dynamite. I will keep it for some other time.
I will now talk about Union Carbide Canada Limited, which left Welland, in Ontario, in order to settle in Beau-harnois, in Quebec. "Ah, here is a wonderful opportunity for Ti-Jean Marchand to develop industry in Quebec, to the prejudice of industry in Ontario." The case they wanted, they have it at last. Now what is the truth about Union Carbide Canada Limited? That firm decided to settle in another country. And I could name it and if there is no objection on the part of the company, I may do it. The company said: There is no chance of success for us here, in the present circumstances. Here is what we are offered in some other country and we would be interested in going there.
And it was at that point, that we began negotiating with the company in order to find out where they could operate economically, and they chose Beauharnois. What a scandal! A French-Canadian member of the Cabinet is shortchanging the industries of Ontario, is eliminating employment over there in order to create jobs in Quebec!
Mr. Speaker, what a whopper! This is the kind of criticism being aimed at the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
This morning, my hon. friend from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was overly critical in his remarks. I could recall the details. But let me tell him right now that
March 10, 1972

practically all the cases he quoted, if I am not mistaken, come under the old act and not under the new one. There may be one exception. However, with your leave I shall reply on some other occasion. He may question me in the House, if he cares, but I could not afford enough time to prepare a summary of the cases coming under the old act on industrial incentives. My department had no choice, it had to do something about it.
Well, this is the scandal that was referred to this morning! We are charged with having provided grants to American corporations such as IBM. However, no mention was made of the funds that were provided to Stelco, for instance, a provincially-owned Nova Scotia steel company. This steel company would have shut down within a few years, had it not been decided to have it modernized now. The Department of Economic Regional Expansion granted this company $15 million so it could modernize and continue operations, but not a word is said about that. No, not a single word! This is much too risky.
We did also help Dosco Industries Limited, in Quebec. The amount involved was much smaller, but we did help them.
Were there any responsible remarks made about that? No doubt the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) will raise a point because, according to him, it is obvious the department did nothing. One only has to refer to the speech delivered by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) to note that nothing whatsoever was said about it. We are being accused of lacking a global strategy and of making whimsical ad hoc decisions.
There is first of all, an overall strategy, which may be criticized as such, as the hon. member for Egmont will probably not fail to do. I am thinking, for instance, of the FRED program in Prince Edward Island. I am not saying it is perfect. I say: Here is an effort made by two governments-the one in Ottawa and the one in Prince Edward Island-in order to try and establish a comprehensive 15-year program to improve the situation. Let people criticize the program-I do not know whether I will be here when the hon. member does so, but I find this perfectly natural. I am not saying we came up with a masterpiece. But to go and say there have been no efforts made is really to be irresponsible.
Some members of this House claim that some day they will be able to govern this country. This is rather amusing, especially when their leader is talking!
If people want to criticize the Eastern Quebec Planning Bureau, they can do so-it is an overall program. Studies were started in 1960. Mistakes have probably been made. There are still some things we will be changing-but to go and say that there has been no overall effort, no overall strategy, to try and develop that area is to be so partisan that it makes me wonder how such people can possibly claim that they are representing public opinion in the House of Commons!
I am not trying to put an end to criticism. I know that newspaper reporters are so fanatic that they are bent on slaughtering us by saying: You cannot even criticize what Mr. Marchand is doing, he is so thin-skinned. I do not
Regional Development
mind criticism. I spent my life being criticized, and also criticizing others. I do not object to it.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am shocked by the kind of talk which I have been hearing in this place since this morning. I am shocked that public funds are used to provide research staff for the opposition parties and they do not even bother using them to call and check the most basic facts.
People have tried to prove how irresponsible the department was just because there have been bankruptcies. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) seeks out bankruptcies and hopes to detect the smell of petty scandals somewhere, and that will be funny. No doubt it will be. Besides, this is his job, but I regret that he does nothing but that. He should also do something, for example, to understand what is being done generally. It is true that bankruptcies have occurred. I am aware of 14 since the implementation of the new program and they amount to almost $900,000. I am not happy about it and it will be necessary to exercise more caution in the future, all the more when $40 million have already been paid up to now.
I am not happy and I do not like it, Mr. Speaker, but I do know that the leader of the hon. member for St. John's East has, in a single shot, lost around $30 to $40 million with his heavy water plant. This does not mean that the former premier of Nova Scotia is a thief, since he tried too much, but it can be said that he lacked foresight. Anyway he missed that opportunity.
I wonder therefore why people are shocked when a minister tries out new programs. Of course, a number of mistakes on bankruptcies may occur and that does not make me happy, far from it, but I will try to correct them.
Now people give us advice but the way they go about it is like my saying to a mechanic: "Look here, old man, before you find out what the trouble is with this car, have you turned on the ignition key, have you put the car into gear?" But people would say to me: "Listen, this is a mechanic."
An hon. member has asked: "Have you conducted market surveys? Are you aware that the construction of a plant would eliminate another and that you do away with jobs in an area and create others elsewhere? Do you take this into account? Well, we have extremely competent people-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is gorgeous.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may come to my department. He could spend one day there and would not understand anything.
Those studies are carried out most seriously since we want all these programs to be efficient.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: When are you going to answer the phone calls?


Jean Marchand: You spoke this morning and I gave you every opportunity to speak without interruption.

March 10, 1972
Regional Development

Mr. Speaker, of course we are extremely careful about it. We know that no regional development can take place if those things happen systematically.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce studies each case, as does the Department of Agriculture when it is concerned. For instance, a case was mentioned this morning by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and what did he raise in the House? Not the case of an application but that of an exchange of letters and apart from that we have advised the company that we do not accept because the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce believes that we are not justified to accept. This is another scandal raised by the hon. member this morning.
There is nothing at all. There is not even any application. As to the exchange of correspondence, we have said no. Your proposition is preposterous. The hon. member then says: How disgraceful.
At any rate, insofar as we are interested in connection with foreign capital, I have but one thing to say: I would be the first to wish for an economy more independent from the American economy, and I would prefer that Canadian companies show real concern about regional development. However, as long as I will be Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I will not accept that underdeveloped areas be imposed limitations which do not exist for other areas. Besides, the members of the New Democratic Party are realistic enough to admit that if an American company, for instance, were prepared to establish its operations at Halifax after obtaining a grant, it would be told: No, you are an American company, you will not get the grant. Then, the company could set up shop elsewhere. That criticism makes no sense.
In fact, one of those who asked me to support the establishment of Boeing of Canada Limited in Winnipeg was the Premier of Manitoba, and I do not hold it against him at all. He did what he had to and his electors would not have forgiven him if he had not done so.
That, of course, does not mean that Mr. Schreyer is in favour of American domination over the Canadian economy. I am convinced he is not, but the rules of the game being what they are, why should Winnipeg have been deprived of it and why should the company have settled in Montreal? That does not make sense. Some criticism that is!
That the New Democratic Party should critize in general, that is its policy, and I have no objection to it. But when it tries, on the basis of the regional economic expansion program, to impose upon underdeveloped regions restrictions that are not imposed elsewhere, that really does not make sense. From a political point of view, not a single member could survive in a area if he behaved in a such a stupid way.
Of course Mr. Speaker, they say that nothing has been considered in our department, that we have 2,000 employees who cannot think. It is difficult to organize a department with 2,000 individuals who are dull! In the

first place, the prairie farm rehabilitation program in western Canada is efficient.
Under the FRED and ARDA programs in the Interlake area, some extremely interesting things have been carried out.
I am also thinking about the special areas on Prince Edward Island.
Nobody could make me believe that Quebecers do not appreciate what has been done in the Quebec City special area.
We will hold a meeting. Let our friend from Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) say in Saint John in New Brunswick that what we have done is stupid!
When all this was discussed, we set objectives and we are trying to develop, to use all this. No. Here is the sentence. The leader of the New Democratic Party has said that this was-

-a complete failure; it achieved nothing, nothing at all. Just give money away, that's all.

That is right. As long as the parties do not show more responsibility in the House, how can one expect the Canadian people to progress rapidly.
Once again, it is not because I am sensitive to criticism. On the contrary, I was reading what Mr. Firestone has written. Some passages are hard to accept, but here is a man who has stopped to think, who has done more than collect newspaper clippings and state in the House that what they say is true, without even checking when they can do so. They do not, because they probably find it too tiring.
Mr. Firestone does better than throw stones and suggest that all that helps to fill the party's coffers. Marchand is the bagman. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has spent his political life making insinuations. Furthermore, he has succeeded in getting rid of a number of people, one of whom I am probably replacing here today. But, I will tell him one thing: I am fairly thick skinned!
They will never get me that way.
As for hon. members-and I do not mean those of the New Democratic Party-who are obviously trying to do the same, I say to them that they have the wrong number, and that they will surely have a lot of trouble anyhow. The leader of the party should not try to go his own way so as to look like the nice chap while the others are doing the dirty work. I do not indulge in racism. I will never do that. I admit that they are free to criticize me and I will not hide behind the fact that I am a French Canadian to say: Because I am a French Canadian minister, they must not touch me. I am in the ring, granted; let them hit me, but fairly and not in a racist way, as a certain number of members are doing now.
So, Mr. Speaker-


Frank Howard: Who is attacking you because of that?
March 10, 1972


Jean Marchand: I just made an exclusion of your ranks.


Frank Howard: I didn't catch that.


Jean Marchand: I just said I am not talking about this part of the House, but some others are, definitely, and I don't want to play that game at all. I just want to say that they are not going to succeed the way they succeeded a few years ago; that is all.

Mr. Speaker, all I want to say-some do not agree but I don't care-is that I do not mind dying provided I feel it is for a good cause.
Here is a department honestly trying-even the hon. member for York South said so-to correct an extremely difficult situation without any doubt. We do not have at our disposal any instrument for that purpose. We can always try with grants. Furthermore, there are the ARDA and FRED programs. With DEVCO we are attempting to ensure development on Cape Breton Island.
We are trying to re-examine all programs, and we have made mistakes. It is really difficult to develop a strategy. We are told: You are not through, you are going against the recommendations of the Atlantic Development Council. It is not true, Mr. Speaker, and I said so in the House several times. I am opposed to one thing only, namely, to determine the number of jobs which will be created in the Maritimes within five or six years. I am opposed to it because I don't know what the answer is. In fact, here knows and any prediction in this regard will only tend to confuse the public and create false hopes. So I do not know. If 175,000 jobs can be created, I will be the happiest of all.
As far as everything else goes, Mr. Speaker, in terms of development strategy, objectives that have to be reached, growth centres, we are in full agreement with the Board and my Department is geared accordingly. I have no objections to criticism in that regard, Mr. Speaker. But I will not have it said that the special zone program is not sound, that we should not choose a city but rather a region; that we should not move in such and such a direction and that we have so much money to spend. The criticism should be knowledgeable and make allowances for the means and instruments at our disposal.
This is not the way the criticism goes. They say: Union Carbide has moved from here to there, the jobs have been transferred, bankruptcies have occurred, etc. This is the only thing that interests vilifiers, but they don't even know the dates of expiry or application of the different pieces of legislation.
I sincerely regret the waste of time incurred for the House and the nation with such childish, futile criticism while I am sure some of these people could express constructive criticism as they are both intelligent and knowledgeable. Since we are in a pre-election period, they probably are only interested in making political mileage and engage in mud-throwing. I am sorry, but I think the mud they are throwing will boomerang. I know there can be errors, I know our programs are not perfect, but I believe in the honesty of our people and I know that the adminis-
Regional Development
tration of the department is irreproachable in trying to reduce regional disparities.
Then we are told: "You say that you have created 50,000 jobs, but it is not so." Is this clear, yes or no? It is very clear. All people have to do is peruse the documents: Everything is there in black and white.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has a big deal. An official of the department probably tipped him off. A telephone inquiry apparently revealed that the number of jobs created under the previous plan was 19,000 instead of 40,000 or 45,000. That would mean that previous statements were not true. The inquiry covered only part of the previous plan which included three parts: grants, tax debates and corporation expansion.
The inquiry applying to the first part only could evidently not yield the maximum figure. It is strange that it should correspond exactly to the figure we had forecast for new ventures. As I have already told him, he does not know how to interpret figures. Nor do I, for that matter. I am not too good at it, but I have enough humility, when faced with statistics, to ask an expert to interpret them, instead of coming to the House to talk rubbish.
They may criticize my department in a constructive way, they may tell us what we should do to eliminate regional disparities, to try to neutralize the centripetal forces which play an important part in Canada. I do agree with that.
I have read the program of the New Democratic Party. Except for generalities, there is absolutely nothing in it. They do not propose any technical innovation nor any means of action.
They tell us: Why not concentrate your efforts on crown corporations? But what are we doing with respect to Multiplex at Saint John in New Brunswick?
What do we intend to do elsewhere where we had inquiries made and where we want to try new instruments? We will try them all. This cannot be done overnight. We may have had weaknesses, maybe we are not going fast enough. Let the criticisms bear on that, but I am not going to take the trouble of answering vague charges. Someone has said that there has been corruption and discrimination in the case of Quebec. That is what they say behind the curtains. I am not going to bother answering those insinuations. If anyone has anything to suggest, I am ready to listen to him for the greater good of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Are you looking for an appointment?


Jean Marchand: Yes, I am going now-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald).


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to snub the hon. member, but I have to go now to an appointment. I shall read it in Hansard.


Frank Howard: Hit and run!


Jean Marchand: No, I hit your boss and run.

March 10, 1972
Regional Development


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the minister, in the concluding lines of his speech, said that he would welcome suggestions and then had to leave the chamber. I hope he will not only read my speech but respond to it.
As the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) spoke, I looked to the Chair a couple of times to see whether Your Honour was still there. At several points during the speech I assumed that Parliament had been dissolved and a general election called. Certainly, it sounded to me like the opening shot of the minister's defence.
It is unfortunate that the minister, during his time in office, has been unable to distinguish between two basic functions of public life: the exercise of one's duties in whatever responsibility one is called upon to perform and the perpetuation of one's political role. The minister has always lumped the two together so that we get speeches that sound for all the world like Grade A stump speeches-they are full of sound and fury, signifying you know what. This is a very sad fact, particularly to those of us who have a very great interest in and basic concern for the administration of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
If ever there was a time when there was need for a concise and rational explanation of the problems of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, it is right now. The minister has repeatedly failed to come to grips with the legitimate questions being raised by opposition critics. In addition, he has not come to grips with the constructive suggestions from his own office, his own advisory council of rural development, the council for the Atlantic provinces or the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. I do not think the minister could accuse the latter of being partisan.
I, therefore, find it incredible and sad that the minister should think that the only defence he has left for his departmental administration is to launch into the kind of sweeping, general attacks that do no one any good and negate the hard work being done through his department. Surely, it is difficult for the most objective observer to take the minister seriously when he suggests, and I quote him, that "No one wants to find out what the truth is" or that he has not heard one criticism from anyone who is anxious to improve the situation. Does the minister really understand the particular weaknesses of the present programs and policies of the department?
In debate and discussion in this House, he should be outlining the steps being taken to alter programs or compensate for some obvious faults in evaluation.


Murray Arndell McBride: You heard the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) this morning.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I heard both speeches but I am not aware that either of those members has the responsibility for running this department.


Mr. Peters:: Just because he defeated you in Renfrew, don't cry.
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier).l


An hon. Member:: This looks like a United Church squabble to me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind hon. gentlemen that the hon. member who has the floor should be heard.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be tempted to say it is "all in the family" but I think that has a dangerous connotation these days.
Unfortunately, the minister's penchant for flying into oratory rather than viewing the substance of issues, has been carried into the department itself. That is not to say that the department is sending forth apostles to preach in the same virulent manner as is exhibited by the minister from time to time, but there has been a paucity of objective information from the department about the success being achieved and about the evaluation of programs attempted during the past 2J years. There has been a lack of information ever since this department was established. There has been no opportunity for a public evaluation and no real suggestions in concrete terms for guidelines in the administration of vast sums of money.
Are there guidelines, for instance, to suggest the criteria that ought to be followed if departmental policies are to meet with success? There should be some guidelines. Is the department following any industrial strategy, or is it merely accepting the present industrial structure of this country? One is led to believe that that is the case. Also, others suggest that the department is trying significantly to alter the industrial structure of the country.
Apart from some inconclusive signs that one might try to decipher there is no information coming from the department, no factual statement to indicate what the present situation is. Members of the House and the general public need factual information if they are to understand whether headway is being made in closing the economic gaps existing in our country. We want to know, as well, when the federal government has initiated new programs and when there has been a proliferation of provincial schemes in this country, if many of these don't work at cross-purposes to some degree with respect to incentives provided by other agencies of the provincial governments or the federal government.
Valid questions have been raised from time to time about the end benefits accruing from the kind of general incentives approach which has been adopted by governments in this country. It is time we had concrete information so that we might know whether incentive grants are actually reaching their supposed goal of creating economic activity and closing to a certain degree income gaps in this country, or whether major benefits are going to company investors and shareholders.
In his speech the minister suggested that people were accusing him of giving away money, and that was all. Anyone who thinks that that is the major strategy or policy that motivates this department can only have been strengthened in that belief by the minister's performance earlier this afternoon. If the minister's remarks represent the best intellectual arguments and rationale that can be brought forward in defence of present regional develop-
March 10, 1972

ment policies in this country, then we are in a very sad state indeed. In no way has the minister alleviated growing apprehension that the department's program is a kind of giveaway program and that our regional development policy is governed by a handout mentality. Certainly many provincial premiers, especially the premiers of wealthier provinces, might think that is so. The minister has done nothing to show that that opinion is wrong.
I come from an area of chronic economic disparity. In the final analysis we are concerned not with aid but with trade. That is the cliche used by the people of underdeveloped countries and it is a good cliche to apply to the development policies of the federal government. After all, would it not be better if such policies were tailored to establish real trade and to abolish economic disparities? At present they seem to consist of stopgap measures of the kind that are too much in evidence.
At the beginning of my remarks I said there has been far too much secrecy about the operations of this department. I suppose that if we want information we shall have to rely on leaks slipping out from underneath bureaucratic doors, because so far there has been no objective presentation of information regarding the effective workings of the department. Until this information is made available to us, how can members of the House know if the department is being viably operated?
In the meantime, some people pay lip service to the work of the department. When the minister or his officials talk about consultation between the federal department and provincial departments as well as other agencies, they are not really talking about consultation in the full sense of establishing an over-all policy or strategy; they are talking primarily of negotiations in which regions, provinces or various groups see how much money they can get. That, really, is the sort of consultation that takes place at present. We must recognize that there must be genuine consultation between the various agencies that play an effective role in the development field. If there is to be consultation, there must be genuine public participation in the field of development. Public participation in the field of development, if I may refer to myself, is my hobby-horse. I ride it hard because I feel this philosophy crucial to the concept of effective basic development. The importance of that field has not been sufficiently recognized by the federal or provincial levels of government.
I am convinced that no major alterations will take place in the economic regions of this country which are presently underdeveloped and underutilized until there is a sufficient measure of public participation in this matter. I think this question has been fully and interestingly elaborated on in a document that comes in a sense from the minister's department. I am referring to the third report of the Canadian Council on Rural Development which reads in part:
In the first place, a development program of any kind needs to identify with reasonable precision its goals and objectives.
This statement, perhaps, might be news so far as the minister and his officials are concerned if it had not been made three years ago. Yet here we are, three years later, still waiting for some kind of reasonable and constructive response from the department. The report continues: Secondly, programs must be instituted consistent with these goals
Regional Development
and objectives. These programs must be continuously evaluated both in terms of their effectiveness and in terms of priorities.
If this is not done those concerned with the operation of the program will not know whether they are succeeding or failing, and, for that matter, neither will the" public.
A general declaration of intent is too vague to function as an operational goal. It is not enough, for example, to say that the goal of the Department is to iron out regional economic disparities. This is of the same rather unhelpful level of generality as to announce a program to fight inflation, or bad health, or crime. We tend to assume that Canadian governments seek to counter inflation, bad health, crime, regional disparity, and so on, as a matter of course.
Obviously, we need information and specific targets to which we can point. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, along with consultation there is need for effective co-ordination. I have said repeatedly, and I will go on mentioning this until the minister and his officials get the message, that the programs of the department need co-ordinating. Not only must there be co-ordination of specific programs which have vital roles to play-in earlier days we had in this area programs such as ARDA, AIDA, FRED, and so on-but there must be co-ordination with respect to many decisions which have ramifications for regional economic development. For instance, there must be co-ordination in such areas as fiscal and monetary policy. We must take into account the differences in the kinds of economic disparities that exist in the regions and there must be co-ordination in specific fields such as transportation.
Only last evening in this chamber I talked about the eight increases in freight rates which have taken place in the last 23 months. The level of freight rates has become prohibitive and has not helped our agricultural industry. Actually, freight rates have had a negative effect on the sale of basic commodities such as potatoes from Prince Edward Island. One can see what has recently happened with regard to feed grain assistance affecting parts of Atlantic Canada.
Also, we need to examine our tariff policy. Transport costs add to the cost of production. Although an initial grant may help a firm to get over the initial difficulties associated with establishing a business, such grant will do nothing to lower other ongoing costs of manufacturing and shipping.
Recently the Prime Minister has been telling us that the government is to introduce a policy with regard to foreign investment. He said something about domestic control of the national economic environment. I have directed questions to the Prime Minister ever since before Christmas. All that he has said since Christmas suggests he has engaged in the most perfunctory kind of consultation with the provinces with regard to what is possibly the most important decision in the national, economic field that might be made by this government.
It does not require too much brilliance to realize the amount of anxiety that exists in Atlantic Canada and with premiers in other parts of the country about prejudicial decisions that might be taken with regard to foreign investment and economic possibilities. We desperately need a national and economic strategy for this country, not one created in the isolation of the east block, apart

March 10, 1972
Regional Development
altogether from the regional realities that make up this country.
The Prime Minister pays lip service to federalism in his constitutional preoccupation but completely ignores it when it comes to the nitty-gritty of economic management of this country. It is possible for a federal government to concentrate on elaborating a policy of foreign investment without the widest possible consultation concerning, among other things, regional economic disparities? Concentration on and elaboration of programs in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion must also exist with regard to the levels of authority in this country.
Surely by now there should be consensus on our goals and strategy, consensus as to what are the real social and economic indicators which show some measure of achievement or failure. There must be frank recognition of the regional economic variations that exist in this country. This government has never clearly stated that it recognizes there is today diversity in the economic needs and possibilities that exist within the various regions of the country. While the department continually reports the large sums of money it has expended, what has it really done to encourage some of the human realities of this problem? In the part of the country from which I come there is need for very heavy emphasis on the establishment of improved management and entrepreneurial capabilities. Without that kind of encouragement and very active stimulation, what can we expect?
In a general way, we need a grand design for the Atlantic region and other parts of the country. The minister pleads that DREE is new and has been in operation for only a few short years. This is not the first country, and he is not the first minister to be faced with the problem of economic development. The people who live in the Tennessee valley in the United States can tell this minister and his officials much about what it means to participate in a grand design.
The minister must realize by now that if the major issues of economic development in the Atlantic provinces are to be met, this cannot be done with a piecemeal haadout approach such as has been adopted. We must think again about the establishment of a Crown agency within the Atlantic provinces which can function in an effective and decentralized way in dealing with the realities that exist in that area.
I believe that while the Atlantic Development Board was in many ways an imperfect structure, it was a much more important force, even if only potentially, than the Atlantic Development Council which seems to have little influence with the present ministry. Having benefited from the experience of the ADB, perhaps we should now engage in a program of establishing not just a Crown corporation mandated by the federal government but a new development agency mandated by the federal government and the four provincial governments within the Atlantic region. Surely on that basis, and with the widest path of public participation and the realization that specific goals and criteria have to be established, we just might be able to make some reasonable, measurable progress in this important area of regional economic development.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity of participating in this debate because I consider it very important.
I cannot say however that I consider the motion of the hon. member for York South very important, for it is but an exercise in propaganda to run down the programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It deals only with generalities and I see two things in particular that do not look too sincere to me. It seems to me that he does not necessarily wish to discuss regional development but rather national or general economic policy. He makes a point of saying that the department does nothing but offer generous grants to big foreign private companies.
I do not necessarily wish to question the good motives of the hon. member for York South, but I would ask him, whenever he wishes to criticize national policy, to do so from now on during an appropriate debate and to stop criticizing regional development, which is just beginning to prove itself in this country.
All those criticisms and that propaganda come from some members of the opposition-not all of them, for some are clever and practical-who know nothing about underdeveloped areas in this country, nothing about the problems that they have to cope with. In fact, they have never considered them, never defined them and have no idea how to solve them.
I say that what they are driving at with all that criticism is to make political hay for themselves, to try to prove that the government with its regional development program does not really want to help those areas but wants big foreign companies to get the benefits and refuses to take care of the national economy and to protect it from foreign control.
I believe that such arguments might have some value, but I wish they were put forward in a context other than the policies governing regional expansion, for they have no constructive impact and instead could prejudice our regional expansion. And I do not consider it appropriate for an hon. member to try to draw political advantage from such a situation.
Mr. Speaker, it is only normal that the policies of the government should be criticized in a system like ours. But that may spell danger. In fact, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been under attack for a year or two. There is a danger, while attacking certain programs, of jeopardizing the well-being of some underdeveloped areas. When commenting on poverty or on Indian affairs, I believe that hon. members should avoid criticism that can be morally or psychologically harmful to individuals or communities. They should avoid creating a climate detrimental to social or economic development in some areas. And even if the right to criticize is the basis of our democratic system, its exercise may sometimes become extremely dangerous.
What I have just outlined I have witnessed in my own area. For some months, the economic conditions have become very precarious in northeastern New Brunswick. Some people, mainly workers or animation groups as well as professionals or businessmen, got together and tried to
March 10, 1972

dramatize this situation to draw the whole country's attention and use it as their battle horse at the national level.
Unfortunately, in my region as elsewhere, there are always people whose only purpose is politicking on this kind of problems. For instance, on January 16 a certain trade union motivated, of course, by good intentions arranged demonstratious and study meetings in Bathurst. They were well-intentionned but their action had political consequences. After these meetings, the member for York South, as leader of his party, came to visit the area. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) came also. They did not come because they were actually concerned with the welfare of this region but because this was a political opportunity to be exploited. They used this opportunity to tell the population that the government was not concerned about them or that the regional development policy was a flop.
My point is this: The political exploitation of this kind of question could emoralize the people of a region. This might well have happened in my area in north eastern New Brunswick because the people there are not for-warned against this kind of thing. In fact, some of them like it since they are aiming at dubious objectives, as the member for York South and the Leader of the Opposition are, who come readily to my region to speak of doom and gloom because they have points to prove: Namely that politically speaking the system does not meet the individual's needs. Those people use that tactic and repeat day after day that we are poor, that nothing can be done about it and that the situation is serious.
Mr. Speaker, it is good to see people remind us that this is serious. It is good to see people like the hon. member for York South tell us that this is serious. It is good to see the Leader of the Opposition tell us, your position is serious and the government is doing nothing about it. It is also good to see the hon. member for York South tell the people in my riding, get organized from a political standpoint, as if he were dealing with a bunch of animals, of uncivilized people that have never been organized politically. It is also good to see the opposition remind us that certain policies of the government could be better. Let them critize them. It is also good to see people in our riding remind us that certain deficiencies in the system do not work to the advantage of the population. But this is also dangerous. By spreading this continuously you create a psychological climate which does not promote development because in order to develop an area, as in the case of an individual, some psychological evolution is necessary at different stages. This evolution has to take place. People have to be constructive and be able, first, to define the problems and analyze them and, second, to examine the solutions. This, Mr. Speaker, cannot be done by crying, grumbling, or saying to one another, we are poor, incompetent and good for nothing.

I was interested in the speech made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). It showed how inept are the ideas of the New Democratic Party in the field of regional development and, possibly, of economics in general. The hon. member used statistics in a way which amounted to nothing but distortion. He compared weekly wages and
Regional Development
output between 1960 and 1961 with those for 1970-71, barely a year after the department had been formed. For him, this was a wise way of trying to prove a point. He tried to argue that because the figures had not improved, the policy was not working.
Next, he compared figures relating to certain areas of the Atlantic region with the figures for Ontario. I think this is unfair. How can he justifiably compare statistics for Ontario with those for the Atlantic provinces when so little time has passed since the formation of the department? He told us he did not want to use the national average because it included elements from the Atlantic provinces. It was certainly not fair for him to try to make a point by comparing us with the fastest growing region of the country. I suggest the hon. member did not use the national figures because he knows very well that the gap has been reduced in the last six years or so.


William Arnold Peters: Tell that to the people during the next election.


Herb Breau: I can talk to the people of Bathurst, but the hon. member cannot because he does not know them. Before he or his hon. friend speaks to them he should learn a few facts about us.


William Arnold Peters: Each of us has been there several times.


Herb Breau: I do not want to talk at length about statistics. When one is talking about the maritime provinces it is not only statistics that count. Statistics are something upon which we can base our actions and they are very relevant to the cities where information concerning the number of jobs available, the amount of investment at any given time and the level of salaries paid is especially useful. But in the Maritimes we have to keep in mind the net social product, the quality of life. People in the Maritimes are not looking for the same salaries as those who live in Oshawa, in Sarnia or even in Calgary. The life in these areas is altogether different, but what we prize is quality of life.
The leader of the New Democratic Party talks about planning as if planning were the answer to everything. I can say, very humbly, that as a New Brunswicker I do not want any planning from Ottawa; I am sick and tired of it. There has been too much planning from Ottawa. The people who do the planning are utterly insensitive to local needs; they do not know what the people in the Maritimes want. In this they are just like the hon. member for York South. How can he say, on the basis of the statistics he used, that DREE is ineffective? He is looking for shortterm political advantage in Toronto and other NDP constituencies. His party never elected a member from New Brunswick of Quebec or, indeed, from any of the maritime provinces so far as I can recall. And if they continue as they are doing, they never will. They do not know the area. They haven't a clue about what the people there want. If what the NDP has to offer is more planning, more theory and more philosophy, I hope they stay in Ontario and the west, because we don't want them.


Murray Arndell McBride: We don't want them in Ontario either.


Herb Breau: There is one aspect of the DREE program that Conservatives like the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. 734

March 10, 1972
Reaional Development
MacDonald), the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell), the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) do not criticize. Here, for the first time, the federal government has said, "We want to equalize opportunity. Here are some funds. Go to the municipalities and decide how you want this money spent; what programs you want.
This program has just started. It may be politically expedient for some hon. members to try to judge the results'of the program after only two or three years, but it is unfair to do so. Let me put a few facts on the record concerning members of the New Democratic Party. When we in the committee on regional development were discussing regional development legislation a few years ago you would never guess, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) suggested. He has been fired from the committee since then and replaced by a more practical member from the west. The hon. member had the audacity to put to the House at report stage two ridiculous propositions. First of all, he proposed that foreign companies should not, as the minister said, receive grants. In this respect he has some kind of phobia. He thinks it is very bad to have foreign investors come to this country. He forgets we are a country that is capital deficient. I realize he did not really appreciate what he was suggesting, in his desire to fulfil his philosophical ambition, and because of his fear of foreign domination of our economy he gave a stupid and naive interpretation of the regional development program.
As far as his second suggestion is concerned, I see a conflict between it and the proposals of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), a very practical and more pragmatic member who knows more about everyday life since he has had to work for a living. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby went on to suggest at the report stage that grants should be given to every service industry. Just imagine that, Mr. Speaker! If his proposal were put into effect, it would mean that every little truck delivering milk, ice-cream or packets of chips would qualify for an industrial incentive grant. The hon. member would assist the transportation companies and all the service industries, such as restaurants and motels.
He has some crazy ideas about economics and state intervention. He thinks that ideology can settle such problems. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby should not have suggested either in committee or in the House that grants should be given the service industries, and when he did the hon. member for Waterloo went red in the face; he could not believe his ears. This shows that we just cannot take the theories of the NDP, their economic planning or the philosophy of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), seriously. I suggest these hon. members visit the slow growth areas, find out a little more about what the people really want and consequently learn a little more about practical economics.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk about the overall situation; I would like to talk about my area, and especially the ARDA-FRED Agreement which is now being

reviewed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the province of New Brunswick.
I see regional development efforts in three ways. Payments are made to individuals, and because some areas are more prosperous than others, some people will get lower incomes. Therefore, all the welfare programs of governments, be they unemployment insurance, manpower training, or straight welfare, are going to result in an injection of capital for the benefit of the people living in those areas because of their lower incomes. This is going to help the service industries.
Another form of regional development as I see it, is the equalization payment system, where money is given to provinces, but I see regional development as being effected through special agreements like those the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been entering into until now.
Mr. Speaker, the ARDA-FRED Agreement signed by the department in 1966 followed a provincial injection of capital due, for instance, to reform in New Brunswick. Nowadays, however, there seems to be a conflict in regional development concepts between the province of New Brunswick and the federal government. At present, I fear that revision of the agreement may be delayed because of conflict due to the present political climate in New Brunswick. In fact, we now have there a government elected by the south and southwest of the province, while the ARDA-FRED Agreement concerns the northeast area where that government does not arouse great political interest. I am afraid, above all, that equalization payments may not apply to that area.
I merely want to say that in revising the ARDA-FRED Agreement, the political context in New Brunswick should be taken into account because, at the present time, the equalization payments do no affect that area as they should.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member; his time has expired.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon when the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) spoke in this debate there was a lot of fury but very little of substance. When the minister chooses to take criticisms of his department as a personal affront I think it demonstrates his failure to understand some of the basic issues which are involved in the subject we are debating.
I note that the minister does not seem to hear very well, either. He said that all the opposition can do is criticize, that they cannot come up with any suggestions for improving his department's programs. I ask, where was the minister this morning? When my leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), was speaking in this debate he outlined a seven-point program which represented proposals made by this party for improving regional development programs. I saw the minister in the House at the time the hon. member for York South was speaking, but apparently he did not listen to the hon. member. The minister is perfectly free to disagree with any or all of the seven points offered by my leader, but simply to say
March 10, 1972

that no suggestions have been made is the height of ludicrousness.
The minister also suggested that some of us seemed to be hung up on the point that grants are being made only to large and to foreign-owned companies, that that seemed to be our only concern and we are suggesting this is the only thing his department does. The minister cannot deny that in statement after statement, and in its own publications, his department has made it clear that the industrial incentives program is its number one program. He cannot deny that a significant percentage of grants given under this program is to large companies, for large amounts. That is a matter of record. Neither can he deny that a large percentage of the grants have gone to foreign-owned or foreign-controlled companies. Those are matters of fact, not matters for argument at all.
The minister then dealt with some of the examples given by the hon. member for York South in relation to the old question of transplanting unemployment. He dealt with a number of cases, such as the closing down of the pulp mill at Timiskaming and the grant for the ITT plant in another location in Quebec. He then suggested that we were saying that the Timiskaming plant was closed as a result of the grant which had been given to the other company. However the minister might wish to interpret the words of the hon. member for York South and others, he cannot escape the fact that a conflict is involved in the closing of one plant at one location and simply giving a grant to a company to open another plant at another location.
The minister also missed a very fundamental point made in one of the seven points put forward by the hon. member for York South, namely, that in dealing with the issues we must look at more than just the profit and loss position of a company. We must look at the question of community interest, a fundamental question of great importance.
The minister also suggested that one of the reasons the Timiskaming plant was closed was higher transportation cost. Why does the minister take note of that point? The fact is that if he and the government had taken steps to equalize transportation rates across Canada, they could do more to eliminate regional disparity than all the departmental programs initiated to date could do.
The minister then went on to deal with Duplate and Michelin and said that under the old legislation he had no discretion in their case. I acknowledge the minister's point in that regard, but at the same time he showed willingness and readiness to accept the phony arguments put forward by those companies for closing down their operations at other locations. Then later on he pointed out that Union Carbide had said they were going to leave the country.
It seems to me that no example could underline better the seriousness of the crisis facing Canada on this issue of foreign ownership. Where is the government's policy on foreign ownership? I can argue about some of the things said by the minister in relation to the program, but if he wants to eliminate some of the problems that he feels exist, why does his government not come forward with its policy on foreign ownership? Why does he not come forward with a meaningful policy which would result in a change of direction for Canada?
Regional Development
We could argue about some of the various firms and the particulars concerning them, but I think none of us has adequate information on the subject at this point. I think it is incumbent upon the government to table all the documents concerning these specific examples. I challenge the government to table the documents in respect of the grants made to these companies and the whole situation concerning the shutdown of these plants. These documents should be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development. In this way we could perhaps answer some of the questions which many people are asking.
I also notice that the minister made no reference to the Industrial Incentives Advisory Board. He might recall that when the hon. member for York South spoke he referred to the problem involving the Industrial Incentives Advisory Board and the potential conflict of interest there. Why does the minister not take steps to correct this situation? When we make a suggestion that the minister should hew away such a conflict of interest we are attempting to help his programs, but he does not accept our help; he apparently thinks he knows it all. The fact is that at the present time there is a potential conflict of interest in respect of this board. I want to make clear that I am not necessarily casting any aspersion on the individuals involved; however, there is a potential conflict of interest which unless resolved and corrected is a situation with which no person can satisfactorily deal. We have Mr. J. B. Estey, executive vice-president of National Sea Products-


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


Mr. Weatherhead:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. member would accept a question.


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order. I should bring to the attention of hon. members that we could very well run into difficulty in respect of allocation of time. Perhaps we should have decided to have 15-minute instead of 20-minute speeches. There is a long list of speakers from different parts of the House. Hon. members might give thought to reducing the number of points of order and reducing the length of speeches so that more of their colleagues might have an opportunity to participate in the debate. The hon. member may, of course, accept the question, but that would be on his own time.


John Stratford Burton: March 10, 1972
Regional Developmem
Mines. These are the things I think we must look into if there is to be any hope of success for the regional development programs.
I challenge the minister to deal with this situation and to do something about it. He said earlier that they had difficulty in finding people to act on the board. This is surely nonsense. It is certainly possible for the minister to find qualified people in business, in university circles and among other people in the community to act on this advisory board, who would not be involved in any potential conflict of interest. I think we must all ask where is there adequate information on some of the special programs this department is handling. We have very elaborate studies in respect of the proposed Gaspe plan, the northeastern New Brunswick plan, the Interlake plan and a number of other plans. However, there is only very brief mention of the other plans in the annual report of the department. Why can we not have some sort of report on these programs which involve expenditures of millions and millions of dollars?
I was surprised at the remarks of the hon. member of Gloucester (Mr. Breau). He came to the defence of the government and seemed to believe it is doing all right. I am sure the people of Bathurst would be very interested to hear this. I am surprised that any hon. member, even a government member, would not be calling on the government to improve these programs and pull up its socks. Certainly there is need for improvement in Bathurst, on the information available to us. If he is interested in the people who work in the plants in that part of the country receiving low wages, I am sure they would be very interested in hearing such a statement from the hon. member.
In 1968 we heard much about the just society, about doing something in respect of regional disparity and the problem of poverty. I think we must ask what progress is being made other than the fact that we are spending a good deal of money. The minister on more than one occasion made reference to specific projects. I think the minister can validly and understandably point to certain programs as having been useful and as having done some good. I have no argument with this, but when this is the type of defence he comes forward with, I think he misses the basic point about what has happened in the country.
Has there been any change in the picture in respect of regional disparity? I say there has been no improvement in this situation. I was very interested to note this afternoon that the minister chose to trot out some statistics which he used before the committee last spring. At that time he tried to show that we are making progress and that things are better. Today he did not attempt to do this. The fact is that some of the indicators he used at that time have taken a change of direction so that they could not be used for his purposes today.
I suggest there is an absence of effective planning in the department. The department has been used for crash programs and this has destroyed its basic purpose. The Newstart program was a very interesting social experiment. We expect a certain amount of difficulty in such a program, and I do not complain about that. In that sort of experiment you will not have a 100 per cent batting average. Although I do not complain about that, there was a body of knowledge, skills and expertise gathered together

in the program which has been disbanded and we have not heard anything about what the government has in mind as a followthrough to that program.
Similarly we have the situation in respect of the multiplex program. Do we see any new results or any real initiative from the government in dealing with the problem in New Brunswick where this program was set up? We have an ad hoc approach. Then there is the question of the government's reliance on its industrial incentive grants. I suggest this reliance is based on the faulty premise that private enterprise can do the job of correcting regional disparities if given a little help. I suggest this is false because I believe private enterprise is responsible for some of the growth in some of the disparities we are trying to correct in Canada at the present time, which are admittedly difficult problems. There is a certain trend we should examine in respect of these grants; I think we should take note of them.
The fact is that there has been a steady growth in industrial incentive grants. I suggest that it will become a scandal in the future unless there is some change in the priorities and the emphasis of the government. Let us look at the picture. In the first quarter of 1970 there were 70 grants approved; in the second quarter, 77; in the third quarter, 78; and in the fourth quarter, 90. In the first quarter of 1971, there were 124; in the second quarter, 147; in the third quarter, 232; in the fourth quarter, 253. This shows a steadily rising trend. I suggest that if this trend continues, within three years the private enterprise of this country will take a rip off of $1 billion annually from the federal government.
The fact is that there are many other problems that could be pointed out with respect to industrial incentive grants-the unplanned growth, the very irrational designation of regions across Canada and the emphasis on pulp mills in some cases. In the case of the Saskatchewan pulp mill, it can be pointed out that the minister and the deputy minister said last spring before the committee that this pulp mill and the government would make sure that pollution control standards were met. Recently, the official of the Department of the Environment who is concerned with pollution control standards for pulp mills stated that the Athabasca pulp mill never had a chance; it simply could not hope to meet the pollution control standards that were being set up by his department.
That was surely known to the government last spring when they were engaging in the type of charade in which we were involved. A great many grants have been given to foreign-controlled firms and I think it is important that I deal with the question of the relationship between regional development and foreign ownership. I do this because of the Prime Minister's statements over the past several months in which he tried to indicate that one reason the government was being careful and was holding off on the foreign ownership policy was that it would hurt regional development programs.
I think we now have convincing evidence through the CALURA reports, the studies of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Gray report which came into public hands that in fact there is a higher
March 10, 1972

percentage of foreign ownership in parts of the country such as Ontario which have enjoyed greater growth. This is no credit to the foreign-controlled firms but is due to the fact that they have concentrated their activities in that part of the country to the virtual exclusion of other parts of Canada. I suggest that much greater emphasis needs to be placed on infrastructure programs. The government will say that a good deal of money has been spent in this area. I suggest that money was spent quickly in the initial stages of the program but a good deal of it was on projects which were unplanned.
I suggest that with proper planning, infrastructure programs can influence the economics of an industry or of a region and the social conditions in those parts of the country. In particular I would like to make a case for the province of Saskatchewan, where recently we have experienced a disastrous turn in the economy. At various times in the past the Saskatchewan economy has been buoyant. The province has been leading in terms of economic activity. But^this is not the case at present. In 1970 Saskatchewan stood seventh among the provinces in personal income per capita. It was well below the national average, approximately 20 per cent below the national average. There has been a population exodus from Saskatchewan.
At the same time, the government says that certain areas of Saskatchewan do qualify for assistance but we have seen very little assistance in that province. I also suggest that there is conflict between the minister's programs and the programs of departments such as the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport which have laid a great deal of emphasis on programs in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to the virtual exclusion of programs in the Atlantic provinces and the four western provinces. I should like the minister to reconcile that program with the programs he is trying to carry on at present.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the suggestion has been made to the Chair that between now and the hour or so that is left, instead of having three 20-minute speeches, in order to give more opportunity to members we should have four 15-minute speeches, which would leave four or five minutes at the end of today's sitting for the independent member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). I have in mind hearing the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras), the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and closing the debate by hearing the hon. member for Joliette. Of course, this is entirely in the hands of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could we not make this an order?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ever since I first read the motion of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) I have had an urge to take part in this debate, for many obvious reasons. Reading all of the
Regional Development
13 lines of the motion made me wonder how this could be tolerated in Canada where we ban hate literature. The leader of the NDP is not unlike the people with whom he keeps company, especially the company he kept at the Montreal Forum last Monday. I should like to mention a few names, such as those of his comrades Pepin, Laberge, and the clown of the court Chartrand who during this beautiful meeting did no less than incite the teachers and public servants of the province of Quebec to undermine the government and take as hostage the schoolchildren of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Frank Howard: Bourassa is undermining it well enough.


Maurice Dupras: In the few moments that I have at my disposal I would like to speak of the results of the program of regional economic expansion in the last five years. We have mentioned that it has created 50,000 jobs. Of course, to these 50,000 jobs we should add their generating value, which means another 150,000.1 wonder if the people who fill these jobs are in agreement with the hon. member for York South regarding the value of the program. I wonder whether they share his view that this has been a disastrous experience.


John Leroy Skoberg: You might be on the receiving end but on the losing end tomorrow.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention the 35 new industries that this program has brought to Labelle riding which I have the honour to represent. Let us ask the 1,500 workers or more employed in those factories if they agree with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) when he states that this has been a disastrous experience and that the government spends money needlessly.
A look at the figures concerning the increase in the Gross National Product is enough to show the effect of the program on the Canadian economy. In 1970, for example, there was a real increase-taking into account the devaluation of the dollar-of 5.4 per cent, that is the greatest annual gain in volume since 1966. Those are the results that were not mentioned, Mr. Speaker.
With regard to the province of Quebec, I would like to quote some figures which do not accord with the opinions expressed by the leader of the New Democratic Party when he states that the regional economic expansion program has been a useless experiment. In fact the percentage of the earned income per capita of the work force in the province of Quebec, which, from 1949 to 1951, was 83.5 per cent of the whole of Canada, increased by 6.4 per cent to reach 89.9 per cent in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970.
These few figures illustrate very well, i think, the value of the program as well as what the program has contributed to the underdeveloped areas in the province of Quebec.
For instance, in other areas of the country, in the years 1950, for instance, the per capita income in the Atlantic area increased from 68 to 72 per cent of the national average, that is an increase of 4 per cent in about ten

March 10, 1972
Reaional Develovment
years, while in Quebec, this income increased from 85 to 91 per cent.
Someone mentioned here today, Mr. Speaker, the importance of this program for the Atlantic Provinces. It was established in the 50's that no less than 10,000 individuals left the Maritime provinces each year. This trend increased as in the early 60's the number of people leaving the Maritimes each year reached 20,000. This exodus has been considerably slowed down since the implementation of the plan for assistance to underdeveloped regions in Canada.
The government plan for elimination of economic disparities is a result of the will to govern, to eliminate regional disparities and thus achieve national unity.
Of course, this problem of regional disparities is not exclusively a Canadian problem. It exists, as the hon. member for York-South stated, in many industrialized countries. Even our Southern neighbours are having trouble with some of their regions. Yet, we should still not underestimate the endeavours and say in advance that they are total failures just because the anticipated results were not achieved overnight.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) mentioned also the advantage that the designation of special areas represents for some parts of the country. We can see those results in certain parts of the Maritimes and in the part of the province where I live, particularly in the neighbourhood of the proposed airport of Sainte-Scholastique. No doubt the same will happen around the future Toronto airport, at Pickering, where an important infrastructure development will be needed in a relatively short period of time, something which the municipalities concerned did not take into account in their budget.
There is, for instance, Saint-Jerome, in my constituency, where they had to treble the capacity of a treatment plant in order to supply the Sainte-Scholastique airport with drinking-water. This expansion represents an investment of $1.5 million dollars, Mr. Speaker, and were it not for the federal government's assistance through the special area program, the town would have been unable to achieve such an important project for the administration of the town of Saint-Jerome and of the airport.
The same thing applies to the building of highways that have been made necessary by the establishment of the new airport. I refer to the building of a utility network to supply drinking water to the airport and to the communities that will develop around it.
The same situation occurred in the Trois-Rivieres area, where following the establishment of a national park the government agreed to pay for part of the cost of the access road to that park. Of course, if the federal government is to agree to spend large amounts of money for the development of a tourist attraction for Canadians, it is certainly responsible for the increase in cost to the provincial department of highways which must ensure access to those sites built by the Canadian government.
The effects of the special zones program were felt by making those improvements possible, without however burdening the budgets of the surrounding municipalities and of the province involved.

In the municipality of Saint-Jerome, which interests me particularly, we have experienced difficulties in 1966-67 in connection with the retraining of workers of a main plant in the city, namely Uniroyal Limited. That plant, which had established a reputation in the manufacturing of canvas shoes for many years, has been compelled for economic reasons to discontinue that production and to switch to a completely different field of operations. Since 1967, that retraining has resulted in a decrease in personnel of the order of 1,500 to 450 persons; the industry has always prospered from 1950 to 1960. But the establishment of a great number of new small industries at Saint-Jerome has resulted in increasing those job opportunities eliminated by Uniroyal Limited. Those industries have allowed the workers of Saint-Jerome to retrain without suffering economic hardships which could have proved fatal to the municipality of Saint-Jerome which, after all, does not have many important industries.
There is a proof that the program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion managed to save from stagnation many Canadian municipalities.
I felt that, as a member from the province of Quebec, which admittedly benefits most from that program and where unemployment is highest, it was my duty to explain the situation and give details on the benefits the act has brought to certain areas of my county.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the motion introduced today by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) indicating the failure of the government to make any progress in eliminating regional disparities. I do not get too much opportunity to speak in this House, Mr. Speaker, probably because I do not force myself forward, but when I entered the chamber about an hour and a half ago and saw the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) speaking, I thought that you, Sir, had possibly changed the order of business and that we were discussing the Explosives Act.
I can verify the transplanting of unemployment by assisting plants in one location while similar plants are being closed in other locations. I can do this by referring to the main industry in my district, in the city of Corner Brook, the Bowater pulp and paper mill which is the main base of the economy of the city, and where 350 employees were laid off because of weakness in world paper markets. Yet at the same time announcement after announcement was being made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion about massive regional development incentive grants going to other parts of the country to start up new paper mills. This was an example of unemployment hitting not only the 350 people employed in the mill but also affecting another 700 or 800 woods workers scattered across the province of Newfoundland, with the result that the economy of a good portion of the province was crippled, not to mention the indirect effect on industry and business dependent upon the pulp and paper mill.
But in spite of all my pleas in the House of Commons to the ministers responsible, particularly the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the matter was treated with complacency and almost disregard. This
March 10, 1972

has resulted in the displacement of good, honest, experienced papermakers because they have had suddenly to change their way of life and uproot their families or resort to temporary unemployment insurance benefits.
Since last September the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and I have been at odds about the situation in the pulp and paper industry. Instead of action we have seen further close-downs of mills across the country. In spite of what the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion issues in his releases dealing with job creation, there is no evidence that this is helping in my district. Let me quote some figures from the manpower review listing clients registered at the Canada Manpower centres in the Atlantic region. The Atlantic region has 29 Manpower offices. At the Corner Brook office alone, serving a city of some 28,000 people, there were 5,500 clients registered. This figure is more startling because there are another 2,700 registered at the Stephenville office just 50 miles away, a community of some 8,000 or 10,000.
Compare this with the city of Halifax, where some 7,700 are registered. Corner Brook itself then falls second highest in the whole of the Atlantic region in the number of those registered. I mention these figures to try to point out the lack of planning or the realization of the seriousness of a one-industry town and the serious effect that a closedown in its main industry can have on its economy and the social problems that arise. Yet after almost eight months the ministers are still having discussions with the pulp and paper industry. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce what he was doing about these discussions, but just then he was going to a meeting so I did not receive an answer.
What about the close-downs of other mills in Quebec and New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, and all across the country? The only action we hear about is that large development incentive grants are going to start other pulp and paper mills to create employment opportunities in other parts of Canada. It is a good description in this motion when it refers to the senseless practice of transplanting unemployment by assisting plants in one location while similar plants are being closed in another.
The government are not only transplanting jobs in Canada, to no avail, but what else are they doing? In spite of the loss of world markets, which is a great part of the problem because new mills are springing up all over the world, this government is giving guaranteed loans to undeveloped countries in order to help them build paper mills and manufacture other products. This further weakens our marketing position and emphasizes the lack of co-ordination between various departments of the government. It is the old cliche that one hand does not know what the other is doing. Here we are faced with the deterioration of probably the largest industry in Canada, yet the government failed to prevent the crisis and only agreed to meet with the association when it was too late.
This government is famous for starting new agencies and pouring millions of dollars into wasteful endeavours. There is no better example than Information Canada. Here we see triplication of effort, not just duplication. All they do is answer phone calls with questions and get the
Regional Develovment
information from the information service of a particular department to pass on to the caller. Some of the work is the responsibility of Members of Parliament who are more capable of doing it. One day I received a call from Information Canada asking a question on veterans affairs. Apparently the person who called did not know that all they had to do was call the information service of the Department of Veterans Affairs to get the answer.
Another part of the motion before us today condemns the government for its failure to make progress in eliminating regional disparities. One of the failures in this regard is lack of co-ordination with associated departments and failure to look with seriousness at the need for the development of the natural resources of the particular region. The province of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, has four main basic resources-fish, timber, agriculture and beauty-besides what we hope are good mineral deposits. This is where the emphasis should be placed.
True, there has been some concentration in this area in Newfoundland. One example is a linerboard mill which we hope will be successful with the assured markets. Whether the plan to transport the raw materials from Labrador will be a success depends on the provision of harbour facilities at Port Harmon in Stephenville, but little or no effort is being directed to providing the infrastructure funds necessary to support the industry. I hope there will be more liaison with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) toward reaching this objective and I should like to receive some answers on this problem as soon as possible. What evidence is there of liaison with the Department of Manpower and Immigration in order to establish a program to train local people for the jobs that will be available in this mill, and to ensure that there will not be more transplanting of personnel from other parts of the country?
Another example of the weakness in liaison is the development of an industry to produce electronic tubes in this community. When the grant was announced by the minister I asked for assurance that there would be a program to train people in this industry, but apart from sending half a dozen people to the parent plant of this firm and the promise of 80 jobs by last September there is still no evidence of success. After a grant to the firm of almost $400,000, this indicates lack of concern for monitoring progress in order to ensure that these firms fulfil their obligation. I hope and pray that these industries will be a success. Instead of the reams of paper coming across our desks announcing the grants, it would be interesting to get an up to date report on the progress being made by some of the firms who received large grants.
Another weakness in the programs of the department, Mr. Speaker, is the lack of co-ordination between departments of government. The need for supporting programs when people are moved to growth centres where industry is created has not been realized. In my province they are intent on resettling citizens to growth centres but without any consideration for what happens to these people after they move. This has caused great grief and difficulty for municipal governments and other responsible authorities who have to provide the necessary housing, educational facilities and public services to the people being resettled. It is only compounding the problem rather than solving it.

March 10, 1972
Regional Development
We hear figures of hundreds of millions of dollars bandied about and directed toward housing, but hundreds and thousands of families are still without decent accommodation in all parts of Canada. With all the experts flying around the various provinces on missions to coordinate and advise on these matters, and the formation of liaison committees, surely we should see some results by this time. Indeed, there have to be some results, Mr. Speaker. If you keep pouring enough money into something you are going to get some results, even by accident. But is it not time we started to take some advice from the people affected by the programs? Is it not long past time we proved our pledge to allow Canadians to participate with government in their own development?
The Local Initiatives Program proved in a great number of cases that people in all parts of Canada have the initiative to help themselves because they have experienced their needs every day for the past hundred years. With all our programs, are we getting the results we are looking for? When are we going to take the lead in providing initiative grants to Canadians without first looking at their bank account? If the government can provide funds for local initiatives programs to provide band-aid relief to unemployment, why can we not find a way to provide the small businessman or the prospective small businessman with some starting capital in order to apply his knowledge and initiative for the good of his region and the country?
We have many loan programs, Mr. Speaker. We have the fisheries improvement loans, the farm improvement loans, the small business loans and the Industrial Development Bank. But what have been the results in my province? In the latest report on small business loans, the figures for the quarter of October to December, 1971, show two loans to Newfoundland in the amount of $50,000. The report of the fisheries improvement loans for the same quarter, shows one loan to Newfoundland in the amount of $11,700. We did pretty well in this quarter under the farm improvement loans. Somebody must have made a mistake, because our usual quota is one per quarter but we got three loans under this program to three lucky farmers for the grand amount of $15,500! They would have been better off if they had submitted a project under the Local Initiatives Program.
Just try and get a loan in Newfoundland under these programs, Mr. Speaker. What happens when you go to the bank? If someone happens to have the security, a fisherman for example, he is steered away from the government guaranteed loan of 6f per cent and given a conventional loan of almost 12 per cent. I have letters to prove that. If he does not have the security, he has not a hope in hades of getting any consideration. The government always tells a tale of woe when you complain and says that the loans are considered in the conventional manner by the particular bank on the merit of the individual. Then why do we have these programs? If you go to the Industrial Development Bank in order to get a loan, you have to sign over your assets, even your wife and children. My colleagues from Newfoundland have raised this question time and time again, but to no avail. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) shrugs his shoulders or writes to the member that there is nothing he can do about it.

I submit that these programs should be investigated The $75,000 a year president of the Bank of Canada should be directed to remind the chartered banks that it is their duty not only to make vast amounts in interest but also that they have a responsibility to Canadians and to the development of Canada. I understand that in agreement with the province of Newfoundland an industrial development corporation is being established with a fund of $600,000. This corporation will provide more assistance to Newfoundlanders and advise them in starting small industry. I certainly hope that there will be some common sense direction. I am sure there will, because the Premier and his Progressive Conservative government will ensure this when he wins a clear majority on March 24.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a few matters in connection with the very great subject of regional economic expansion because the Atlantic provinces, the area I represent in the House of Commons and the people of the area have an important stake in the efforts of the government to increase incomes and employment in the disadvantaged parts of Canada. If time permits, I would like to make some comments about three aspects of the program: first, the industrial incentives; second, the program of infrastructure and, finally, a part of the program of the department that has not been mentioned so far, namely, the work of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Before entering these particular aspects of the work of the department I would like to refer to the suggestion that has been made that in some way there may be a conflict of interest in the operation of the Industrial Incentives Advisory Board. The Industrial Incentives Advisory Board is chaired by the deputy minister and is composed of civil servants as well as outside representatives of business and trade unions. There is no possibility of any conflict of interest arising in the operation of the board, because it is purely advisory in capacity; it makes no decisions. When matters affect any individual on the board or organization, the interest is made known and that is taken into account in the subsequent discussion and decision. I hope hon. members will relieve their minds by the knowledge that there is no possibility of conflict of interest. We ought to be careful in making such allegations so that we will not lose the services of persons who are making a real contribution to the industrial expansion of the disadvantaged areas in Canada.
With respect to the operation of the industrial grants program, it has been suggested in the debate that this is the major emphasis in the department. That, of course, is not the case. The total budget of the department is spent in a balanced assessment of the needs of industrial development, industrial grants, infrastructure, rural development and social adjustment. In fact, the total budget is split three ways among these three areas of departmental activities.
A good deal has been said about industrial grants. They have been knocked by the New Democratic Party as an
March 10, 1972

evil of some kind. They have been linked to foreign corporations and giveaways. Certainly in my part of Canada the program of industrial grants is regarded as an essential part of a program of industrial development. Any effort to decrease or remove these grants would be greatly resisted by the business community and the population generally of Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces. In the real world where I live in Nova Scotia I can point briefly to a number of major plants that are contributing to the development of the province and enhancing employment opportunities, which have been assisted in locating in that province through the program of industrial development grants.
The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) is in his seat today. He knows that the foreign corporation Miche-lin was assisted to locate in Nova Scotia in part through the provision of industrial grants. It is a foreign corporation. No one in Nova Scotia would suggest that grants should be denied to this corporation locating in Bridgewater and Granton. It will ultimately provide employment for 1,800 people. An industrial grant has been given in my constituency, in the Strait of Canso, to Nova Scotia Forest Products Limited which is a European-owned and controlled company. Through a recent expansion it will provide increased employment in the plant of 250 people and in the forest and related industries of 1,000 people. Gulf Oil, which is located in the Strait of Canso, has established a refinery. It has been assisted by a handsome industrial grant of millions of dollars under this program. Through the co-operation of Devco it has established a large industrial development there.


John Leroy Skoberg: At the expense of Moose Jaw.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the modernization of the Sydney steel plant, a cornerstone in the province of Nova Scotia, is vital. The industrial life of Cape Breton would be inconceivable without the continued operation of that plant. The modernization now planned will cost $95 million, and $15 million will come from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the form of an industrial incentive grant. That is what is being knocked by the motion before the House.
I can indicate from these major examples that these grants are important to the province of Nova Scotia and its future development. We do not take kindly suggestions that they are somehow a fraud on the body politic and that because capital is coming from non-Canadian sources grants should be withheld. Under this program grants have been made in Nova Scotia in the amount of almost $27 million. This involves a total investment of approximately $130 million. I want to put on record that in the allocation of industrial grants, Nova Scotia has the highest per capita figure of any province in Canada, including Quebec. I hope that will set to rest the allegation that is too often made, that the minister is somehow favouring his native province in the allocation of industrial grants and other parts of the program. If figures mean anything, and they mean a great deal, the fact is that my province has been treated better than any other province in Canada, certainly better than the province of Quebec. We want the program to continue.
Regional Development
In the field of infrastructure, a very important part of the department's work, we are giving support to special areas or growth centers in the province of Nova Scotia, one in Halifax-Dartmouth and the other in the Strait of Canso area. Under this program about $74 million has come in two years to the province of Nova Scotia to provide the necessary infrastructure related to industrial development. The key strategic concept in the industrial development of the Atlantic provinces is to build up certain growth areas which have the greatest opportunity for development and to ensure this development by provision of infrastructure including water, sewers, schools, highways, and so on. Up to the present time in Nova Scotia we have given $74 million for this purpose.
In Halifax-Dartmouth seven schools have already been built under this program. Water supplies have been guaranteed to the city of Halifax. The construction is in progress of transportation facilities leading into and out of Halifax to relieve traffic congestion. All are necessary to build Halifax as a major industrial centre providing the amenities of modern life and serving as a centre of employment for people from the hinterland of the province. This is a good, sound proposition. Nobody involved in the administration, the town planners or the mayors, is knocking this program. The theorists are knocking it, but the people at ground level who are building sewers and schools are saying, "more, please." The people outside the boundaries of the special areas are asking, "Why can't we get in?"
In my own constituency of Cape Breton Highlands-Can-so there is a special area at the Strait of Canso. Infrastructure money is available to build the necessary industrial parks, to provide water and sewers in a community such as Mulgrave, to build roads from the main highways into the parks to make the area an attractive one for future industrial development. The schools in this area are overcrowded. The municipality cannot provide the schools needed. The province is strapped. So the federal government will be asked through DREE to make available the necessary additional school facilities so as to make possible the human services which must accompany industrial development. At the moment there is under way a special feasibility study which envisages a big new school in that area.
I regret that so little stress has been placed in this debate upon what is being accomplished, upon what is going ahead and supported, certainly in my part of the country, as an essential part of economic development, though undoubtedly there are criticisms to be made and improvements to be introduced. Let me refer again, particularly, to the infrastructure development which is related to the whole of the Halifax-Dartmouth area and through to Canso. The rest of Nova Scotia is wondering why it is not eligible for this special grant. It is not always easy to understand that what is being done is part of an over-all concept of regional economic development.
We want to see these two areas developing because of their greater potential and because, hopefully, there will spring up large centres of population which will allow young people from other parts of Nova Scotia to find jobs in the province rather than going off to Toronto or to the
742

March 10, 1972
Regional Development
west to find employment. We prefer to see more of our young people stay and contribute in their own province of Nova Scotia.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) is in his place and is aware of the program we are operating particularly in Cape Breton through the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Hon. members opposite can knock regional development if they want to, but there is no one who would knock the concept of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and what it is attempting to do to stabilize the economy of Cape Breton Island. Were it not for Devco, as it is called, financed from funds of the department-and financed handsomely this year- the future outlook for industry in the hon. member's constituency would be bleak indeed. However, with the funds made available through the corporate structure the future is not entirely without hope.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister telling us how beautiful things were in Nova Scotia, how everything was functioning in a well organized way and how all this was possible because of the financing available through the department whose affairs have been the subject of so much comment during this debate.
It is interesting to note that the province from which I come, British Columbia, also received some grants under the DREE incentives program. I believe that of the total amount of money allocated under that program over the last two years, one half of one per cent was available to industry in one part, and one part only, of the province of British Columbia. We are glad to know that we are able to contribute something, probably, to the re-election of the minister in a riding which embraces one of the special areas to which everyone is so generous. That is, if he does not get to the Senate before then.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No chance.


Frank Howard: Because of the limitation on the time available to us I shall refrain from making extended comments about what the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) had to say. I will only mention that after watching his performance this afternoon, the arm-waving, the histrionics, the sound and the fury of his presentation, I am convinced he is a great believer in the concept that when you have a poor case you should cover it up with a lot of noise. This is precisely what the minister did.
It has been argued that DREE has no strategy, no concept. I think it has. The basic concept is that of providing a great big barrelful of money. All anyone in industry has to do in order to get his hands into the barrel and get some of it is make an application. Just help yourselves! Government, supposedly there for the purpose of serving the interests of Canada, has set this up as an agency to respond to the requests of industry. Surely it should be the other way around. Surely industry should be required to respond to the requirements of government, because government is supposed to represent people.

I think this was well illustrated by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion himself when he talked about Union Carbide moving out of the country, out of Welland, if the department did not step in and do something. Mr. Speaker, who is running this country, Union Carbide or the government of Canada? Who was elected to run the show, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cohorts in the cabinet or Union Carbide? I have the impression that Union Carbide is calling the shots and that the government is knuckling under and responding. This is what is wrong with the whole attitude of the government as reflected particularly in the actions of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
Some years ago we believed in the concept that the purpose of government was to serve the people; that we would combine together to elect a government to do things for us collectively that we were not able to do individually. That is the way it was supposed to work. The political party heading the government of Canada today has for a number of years told us that that concept is wrong. What this government says is that the purpose of government is to create an atmosphere within which the capitalist system feels comfortable and then the benefits will come in a second-hand way back to the people.
Is the purpose of business to create employment? Certainly not. Business has no interest in creating employment, in providing jobs. The objective of business is a very simple one. As any businessman knows, it is to make a profit, to exploit resources, to exploit an area, to exploit the people in that area and the workers working within that particular industry. And all for the purpose of making a profit. The government has told us that that is a valuable thing today.
That is the strategy of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, simply to let itself bend to the whim and will of industry itself, to respond to requests when applications are made for some of the $900 million that has been available over the past three years with a firm "Yes". It is a strategy that is not economically sound as much as it is politically advantageous. In operating this way, even though he says otherwise, the minister is looking at the political advantages to a large extent. These are not my words but the words of a member who used to be in the cabinet and left, who divorced himself from the cabinet. He sat in the same councils as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but could not stomach the short-range, sellout approach of this government.
I have an article from which I should like to quote briefly. It appeared in MacLeans magazine for July of last year and is headed "Baby, it was cold inside". It is the story of how Eric Kierans was frozen out by the Prime Minister.


Murray Arndell McBride: Who is the author?


Frank Howard: Walter Stewart.


Murray Arndell McBride: Ha!


Frank Howard: My hon. friend may laugh, but let me tell him he will laugh on the other side of his face
March 10, 1972

when he realizes that the minister offered $200,000 to drive an industry out of his own constituency. And what did he do about that?


Murray Arndell McBride: That is not true. Even your own leader accepted that was not true. He tried to get away with the untruth but when I pointed it out to him he admitted I was right.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, would you protect me from this self-appointed purist over there? I should like to refer to this article. I assume certain passages are put in quotation marks because the author knew he was quoting the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans). This is what the article says in part:
-the decision-making process, as Kierans saw it, was not a controlled, efficient progression, but "ad hoc, scrambling and almost always tuned to 'How will this look in June. 1972?' ''
That is the date that people looked to, even some years ago, as the date of the next election. I continue:
"We would get pushed into a project because it would provide some jobs in time for '72 and that would make one riding safe, whether the project made sense or not, whether it was for the long-run benefit of the country or not; it all came down to one thing, creating lots of activity for '72." Aid to American companies to build pulp mills in northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan while Canadian companies in Quebec were laying off workers could only be explained, Kierans felt, by the hope of buying votes with jobs.
Those are not my words. I did not sit in on cabinet meetings. I do not know what the internal discussions were but I am sure that the hon. member for Duvernay did. He was there and took part. He saw what was happening, but unlike the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion he at least had the guts to stand up and be counted and leave, because he knew that that situation was wrong. I wish the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion had as much courage. Certainly he should know better, unless his intention is to stay there and play politics right to the limit.
I should like to refer to what the minister said in the House a few days ago. He was asked about this dual role of his-on the one hand having hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to give away to industry and on the other being the key campaign figure for the Liberal party, the chief fund raiser, in the province of Quebec. He was asked about this conflict of interest and I should like to quote from Hansard what the minister said when he replied in this House. As reported at page 458, he said:
Mr. Speaker, I state solemnly in this House, that I have never collected a cent for the Liberal party; as leader for Quebec, and responsible for Quebec,-
I take the minister's word for that. If he says that he did not collect a cent for the Liberal party, fine. He went on:
-I merely sent a letter of invitation to a fund-raising cocktail.
He continued:
All I did was send a letter and no one-this I state solemnly- knows the names of the companies that ask for subsidies from the department-
That is an outright falsehood. The minister issues press releases under his own name. A monthly summary is issued by the minister giving the names and addresses of the companies that asked for and received offers of
Regional Development
grants from the department. So he knows who they are and so does everybody else. The minister continued:
-never are those companies approached for funds, unless it is later on, and then I know not by whom.
I suggest the minister does know by whom. He is in charge of his department. Over the last three years his department has had $900 million of taxpayers' money available to give away to impoverished outfits like IBM. He then sends a letter inviting them to a cocktail, fundraising party and signs his name to the invitation. Who else in the Liberal party would approach these companies and say, "Look here, IBM, you had $6 million; Union Carbide, you had $1.3 million; Falconbridge, you had $4 million; Noranda, we gave you $4.5 million. How about giving some back to our campaign fund?" Is anybody telling me that the Liberal party does not do that? Does the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion expect us to believe that this does not happen? Of course it does.
The minister is a member of the political party that runs the government of this nation. The minister is able to make gifts amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars to certain companies. Then he puts on his other coat and becomes the Liberal party fund raiser, or somebody in the Liberal party goes to the back door, knocks and says to these companies; "Remember how kind the government was to you? Won't you be kind to us now?" That is how the taxpayers' dollars are siphoned off. This money is given to these companies so that they can give some money back to the Liberal party in order that they can run an election campaign. The government is buying us out with our own dough.
No wonder the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not want to see any disclosure of the source of campaign funds. No wonder he wants to protect his friends. No wonder he does not want to tell us who these 95 companies are the Liberal party has been living off over the years. No wonder he does not want to tell us that when he attended a fund-raising dinner in Toronto, IBM was represented, as was Union Carbide, Falconbridge, Noranda Mines and Gaspe Copper. Was that accidental, or were they wanting to pay their friends back again so that this same crowd of sellout artists could get back in and continue to sell us out?
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion used to be a member of the trade union movement before he was vacuumed into the Liberal party. If this is the way he operated then, thank heaven I was not a member of a trade union when he was negotiating for us or we would have been faced with sellout programs every week.
Speaking of foreign ownership, he is not satisfied to have in this country a situation where in 1969, 94 per cent of the money United States corporations used to buy out Canadian industry came from Canadian sources, from borrowings in Canada, from profits in Canada and from tax loopholes under Canadian law. He is not satisfied to have that. The minister has now taken another $42 million, or something in that order, of the taxpayers' money to give to various United States corporations to buy us out further with our own money. That is the sort of sellout artists they are, and it is very regrettable that representa-
744

March 10, 1972
Regional Development
tives of that party stand up in the House and try to justify this sort of activity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I was particularly anxious to participate in this debate because I represent a riding that has benefitted, for over a year now, from the advantages which derived from the programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
The privilege the minister granted my riding has been quite useful; I know a certain number of industries were able to settle there, and that some others derived some benefits.
As opposed to the mover of the motion, of course, I believe far more than he does in the validity of that policy. I feel there is far too much generalizing with regard to some of the weaknesses that may exist in so broad an Act as that on the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I feel that we would stand to gain if, objectively, we brought out the positive results of that act, if we really want to dispel some of the doubts and misgivings of the people.
I would like especially to point out to the government and to the minister the importance of this legislation for my area. I think that my first responsibility is to request that the government give a very special attention to the 30th of June when designated areas will be reviewed and I make this request on behalf of the businessmen in my riding and the municipalities which are exceedingly fascinated by this policy and which could obtain far more benefits than hitherto.
I believe it is my duty to request the special attention of the minister to my region, not only to maintain the designation that it has already acquired, but to ask him to consider the economic pattern that is ours and the difficulties we encounter in terms of unemployment.
My riding borders on an area which is going through quite an amazing development, the area of the airport at Sainte-Scholastique which enjoys a more advantageous designation. There are also surrounding ridings which are accorded more substantial grants than mine.
Therefore I take the liberty, on behalf of all the people concerned in my riding-who are entitled, I think, to the same benefits-of asking the minister to weigh the difficulties against the advantages that a more attractive designation would bring about. As regards the particular review of my riding, I believe, thanks to the minister's objectivity and his efforts to secure not only investments,
but also to make economic injections in various areas, that my riding could enjoy, through a more advantageous designation, the same benefits as accrued to some ridings adjoining mine as well as the area which will benefit from the airport at Sainte-Scholastique.
I am confident that my recommendation today in this debate that bears particularly on the department of Regional Economic Expansion will be well understood by the minister. I know that he knows well the area that I represent and I must say after all that for the past year and a half, contrary to the views expressed in this House today, all those men and women who have requested services of the department of Regional Economic Expansion have met with excellent co-operation from that department on various kinds of problems.
With respect to this legislation, although it contains some shortcomings or poses some problems, I must admit that on the whole, we must support it as serious members of Parliament if we want to serve the people because this legislation represents very considerable efforts on the government's part.
Again, we should maybe be thinking of working in a more positive or a more effective way with regard to the industry which has had to disappear and I did not think it fair to blame the minister for the difficulties we are facing. We have a duty, as responsible members of the House and as men anxious to serve their country, to acknowledge his efforts.
The co-operation of opposition members is also necessary. We have a responsibility to forget about our electoral interests, which in a while may be very useful, to try and think rather of the interests of a society which demands and requires co-operation of its representatives. The government, which after all is aware of this situation, is prepared to study concrete proposals to realize its objectives in the best interests of the Canadian people. But for that we need to be more positive than we have been so far, and not limit ourselves to making the kind of negative criticism of which we hear far too much in this House.
Mr. Speaker, my time has expired, and I like to think that my remarks will have served the best interests of the area which I have the honour of representing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Honey):: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), debate on the motion is over.
The House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 13, 1972