1977-05-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the strong views expressed by the Honourable Mr. Justice Berger in connection with a gas pipeline from the Yukon and that a railroad was commended and approved by the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport in 1972 following an engineering, economic and environmental feasibility study of a railroad to carry Arctic oil and liquefied natural gas to markets in central Canada, and as the institute agreed with an earlier preliminary analysis which concluded that a railway is technically and operationally feasible and appeared to be financially attractive, with unanimous consent of the House, I would move:
That a committee of the House be set up to examine this question without delay, as the conclusion of the Canadian Institute was that 360 locomotive units and 11,000 tank cars of 94 ton capacity with 20 trains per day could move the necessary requirements of oil and gas.
Furthermore, having regard to the unemployment situation, the report agreed that such a railroad would require 5,000 workers to build over a 5'A year period, and it would employ, on completion, some 4,600 people in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and there would be very little disruption to the environment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUPPORT FOR RECOMMENDATION NO NORTHERN PIPELINE BE BUILT FOR TEN YEARS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to
the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that Canada has a sufficient supply of natural gas to last until 1990, and given that a Mackenzie Valley pipeline would cost between $8 billion and $12 billion, and in particular given the conclusions of Mr. Justice Berger that: "a pipeline across the northern Yukon would entail irreparable losses of national and international importance" and that if a pipeline were built now "... it would bring limited economic benefits, its social impact would be devastating, and it would frustrate the goals of native claims", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House supports the principal recommendations of the Berger report that no pipeline be built across the northern Yukon and that no Mackenzie Valley pipeline be built for at least ten years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation for debate of such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the fact that a number of companies whose head offices were situated in Quebec have moved or will move on account of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec, and the fact that an alarming situation is being artificially created to discredit the legitimate aspirations of the Quebec government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Gauthier):
That the federal government do not provide any assistance by way of loans, subventions or subsidies to companies moving their head offices but that, on the contrary, government consider the advisability of giving them assistance so that they may remain in Quebec and comply with the requirements of the priority given to French in that province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

May 10, 1977
The Economy


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In light of the immense human problem that eight years of economic failure has created, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House direct the government to bring forward a revised budget for the economic reconstruction of the country which shall include the following: income tax cuts of the order of $250 million to stimulate the economy, federal sales tax reductions on certain products such as building materials to stimulate demand and create jobs and long term tax contracts for companies investing in 'have-not' regions of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


SUGGESTED MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT AND STIMULATE GROWTH-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
When the "magnificent seven" gathered in London this past weekend, it was determined that unemployment is the cause celebre of the industrial world today. As the administration's last budget did not give sufficient attention to our own mounting unemployment, the highest of the seven, ensuring as it does at least one million unemployed in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House instruct the government to bring in a new budget which will address itself to the critical unemployment problem in Canada and our lack of real growth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation for debate of such a motion can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


PROPOSAL TO DEBATE CONSTRUCTION OF NORTHERN PIPELINE FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF REPORTS THEREON-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the government of Canada will have to make a decision on a northern pipeline and on the issues considered by the Berger inquiry and by the National Energy Board, by consultants and by Dean Lysyk of the University of British Columbia, and in view of the paramount importance of the involvement of and consultation with the House of Commons before the government makes any final decision upon proposals for the construction of a northern pipeline, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the government be instructed to initiate a full debate in this House concerning proposals for the construction of a northern pipeline once all of the relevant consultants, boards, commissions and committees have reported on the matters referred to them in connection therewith, and that no final decisions be taken in connection with such matters until after full debate so that the views of members of the House as to what action should be taken in the national interest may be known.


Mr. Speaker:: A motion under Standing Order 43 can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


PROPOSAL TO ACCEPT BERGER RECOMMENDATION TO SETTLE NATIVE LAND CLAIMS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF NORTHERN PIPELINE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
In view of Mr. Justice Berger's strong recommendation in his report on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, tabled yesterday, that a pipeline should await both a settlement and implementation of native land claims, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this government accept and implement the recommendation.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation for debate of such a motion can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!
May 10, 1977



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Earlier this week, the communique of the London economic summit conference which was signed by the Prime Minister of Canada and six other heads of government, affirmed, and I quote, that "our most urgent task is to create more jobs" and went on to say "we are particularly concerned about unemployment among young people". I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether in the light of that declaration the government of Canada which is now talking about this problem, is prepared to bring in new and effective job creation measures to assist the more than one million Canadians presently out of work.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: The
action taken by the government in anticipation of the current high unemployment rates was reflected in the budgetary proposals as well as in the special Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs. These actions were taken in the light of our expectation that we would be facing high levels of unemployment at this time. It is not proposed at this time to bring in further measures because we believe that over the next period of time the budgetary proposals will have an effect and we can look forward to increased employment.


Charles Joseph Clark: I ask myself if the Acting Prime Minister will be able to get away with that kind of cold comfort when he goes home to the unemployed of Cape Breton.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he won't go home.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, perhaps he will not go home. Given the fact that Canada's unemployment level is currently the highest of the seven nations that signed the summit conference communique and that the unemployment level in this country is among the highest of the 24 OECD nations, and in light of the signal failure of this country to create jobs and of the fact that the government stands out in the industrialized world for its failure to create jobs for its citizens, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government of Canada is not now prepared to consider a significant change in its existing spending priorities to help reduce our shocking national level of unemployment, and whether the government will not consider a further selective reduction in federal taxes to stimulate demand and to get Canadians working again?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred to Canada's standing among the industrialized countries of the world. He will have noticed that the report prepared for the summit conference indicates that Canada's
Oral Questions
economic performance over the past number of years was the best among the seven industrialized countries meeting in London. I repeat the answer I gave earlier that it is not the intention of the government to introduce new measures at this time because we must give an opportunity for the economic stimulus package presented in the budget to work itself through the economy.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT-POSSIBILITY OF SEEKING CO-OPERATION OF LABOUR AND MANAGEMENT TO CREATE JOBS
Charles Joseph Clark: I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, first of all, if he would like to send that report to the more than a million Canadians who are out of work so that they can take the kind of encouragement from it that he has found. I would like to direct his attention to the time bomb that has been built into Canada by the fact that so many of the unemployed in this country now are under the age of 24 and are starting to look for work when there are no jobs available to them. Given the fact that that kind of unemployment among young people can cause serious continuing social unrest and alienation, particularly in the five eastern provinces,T would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether in the discussions that are now underway with business and labour on behalf of the government of Canada there has been any attempt by the government to get those two other partners in the economy to create jobs for young people since the government of Canada will not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition obviously refers to a serious problem in the Canadian economy, but he should bear in mind the number of positive aspects, namely, the total employment in Canada has increased by about 110,000 in the last several months, the export picture is quite strong, the expectations of manufacturing intentions are quite positive, and the upturn in the United States is bound to have an effect on the Canadian economy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Don't hold your breath.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in addition to the economic stimulus package contained in the budget of the Minister of Finance. There is no disposition of this side of the House to underestimate the gravity of the present situation, but I believe it should be placed in the proper context.


Charles Joseph Clark: I presume that when the Acting Prime Minister talks about the improvement in the export situation he is talking about the export of young Canadians whom the Prime Minister counsels to leave this country if they cannot find work here.

May 10, 1977
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The fact is that in the cheerful list of statistics cited by the Acting Prime Minister he neglected to tell parliament and the people of Cana'da that almost 40 per cent of our unemployed have been out of work now for more than three months. In light of that situation 1 will ask the Acting Prime Minister one last time whether the government of Canada will accept its responsibilities and begin to show the million Canadians who are out of work that their government cares about their plight and is prepared not simply to hope that budgetary measures, which we know will not work, will work, but instead will take action to create jobs now for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the exports I had in mind were Canadian merchandise exports which increased by 14 per cent in the first quarter of this year compared with the final quarter of last year.


An hon. Member:: It was low last year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is a very positive feature. The hon. gentleman is aware that in this current fiscal year we are putting almost $500 million toward direct job creation programs in the Canadian economy, which is an indication of the seriousness with which the government is dealing with the present situation.


POSSIBILITY OF REVISED BUDGET TO STIMULATE ECONOMY AND PROVIDE JOBS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it is shocking to hear the Acting Prime Minister state that we have to wait for an upturn in the United States economy so that we can take advantage of it. In light of the fact that we are still in the midst of a national crisis in terms of high unemployment, will the minister tell this House whether the government is now prepared to bring in a revised budget to stimulate the economy and to restore confidence in its performance, thus meeting this tragedy by providing jobs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am very concerned about the answer the minister just gave to me because he did not answer the question. In light of the fact that we are faced with a national crisis and that the government only tinkered with the economy in the last budget, will the Acting Prime Minister now indicate to this House whether he is prepared to bring in a revised budget to stimulate the economy and restore confidence in its performance, thus meeting this tragedy by providing jobs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question also.


SUGGESTION PRIME MINISTER ASK UNITED STATES FOR MORE
[Stage Direction]
TIME TO MAKE DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION OF NORTHERN *	PIPELINE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We have now learned that U.S. energy adviser Schlesinger has informed the minister that the United States does not regard Prudhoe Bay gas as being significant in terms of over-all American needs. Considering that President Carter can obtain a 90-day extension on reaching a pipeline decision, and in particular, following the recommendations and suggestions in the Berger Report regarding alternatives to investigate, will the minister urge the Prime Minister, when he returns to Canada, to reconsider his answers given earlier last week in the House and to go back to President Carter and inform him that the government of Canada needs more time to reach this fundamentally important decision on a northern pipeline?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it would be helpful if, before making judgments and thinking out positions with respect to pipelines, hon. members opposite would await the report of the National Energy Board. When we have that report, we will be much better able to judge whether additional time is going to be needed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADEQUACY OF STUDY OF ALCAN ROUTE FOR PIPELINE-SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF TIME
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister misses the point. In light of Justice Berger's recommendations, which the minister praised so highly last night, that the Alcan route deserves more serious study-the report specifically referred to certain questions which ought to be more fully pursued-and in light of the ridiculously short time frame the Alcan study is now working with, does the minister agree that a three-month study is adequate to deal with the questions that are being considered with regard to the Alcan route? If he does not agree, why will he not agree to extend the time frame so that the job can be adequately done?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member has informed himself on the particular study to which he has referred. As my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has made quite clear, the situations are different-different in the sense that the Alcan study is associated with a corridor already in place, that is, the highway. The second point that I think he has made clear is that this would be a preliminary study and further work would be done upon receipt of it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is going to follow the logic of the statement he has just made, surely when
May 10, 1977

the government report comes in, if it is going to require further study,-which means during the summer months-given the whole social and environmental aspect of the question that Mr. Justice Berger referred to in his report yesterday with specific reference to Alcan, would the minister not conclude on a rational basis and in terms of commitment to the people of Canada that it is impossible to reach a sensible decision on this prior to September 1 ?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is apparently prepared to prejudge all the questions.


John Edward Broadbent: You are prejudging.


Alastair William Gillespie: Indeed you have. You have already prejudged virtually every issue related to this very difficult decision. The government's position is that the National Energy Board has been hearing evidence for many years and we expect to receive their report this summer. We will take our decision after we have seen that report.


John Edward Broadbent: After parliament has gone home.

[Translation\


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the fact that Statistics Canada is responsible for counting the number of unemployed in Canada, and that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration takes into account the data provided by Statistics Canada when computing the amounts to be made available to the various constituencies under the Canada Works Program, could the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tell the House whether he is willing to suggest more effective and adequate means to compute the real number of unemployed in the various regions, so that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration can truly assess the needs of all regions and deal fairly with them?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has assured me on a number of occasions that no better method exists today for computing the number of unemployed than those it is currently using. These methods are internationally recognized and used, but if the hon. member has concrete suggestions to make to the House to improve the current system, I shall consider them gladly and refer them to Statistics Canada.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
It is the first time that a member of the cabinet invites me so openly to make suggestions to help him in his work.
Oral Questions
In view of the minister's answer, may I ask him whether he wants me to submit such suggestions orally or in writing and whether he is prepared to consider them?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course I will be prepared to consider them and I would be glad to meet the hon. member. If he wishes to see me, I am always available.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of his statement that 110,000 jobs have been created in past months, would he indicate if he was aware of the fact that 240,000 people actually came into the Canadian labour force in the past 12 months. This means that approximately one job was created for every two people looking for work in the past year. If the minister was aware of that may I ask if the government did not take into consideration the fact that jobs had to be created for 240,000 people, not just the 110,000 for which he takes credit.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that one of the problems we have faced over the past several months has been the rapid increase in the Canadian labour force.


UNEMPLOYMENT-POSSIBILITY OF DEBATE ON SITUATION IN CANADA AND OTHER COUNTRIES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the fact that there were 9,000 fewer jobs in April than in March and in view of the findings of the economic conference in London which has declared the unemployment situation in Canada and the other six countries as a cause celebre, I have a supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Prime Minister indicate if there will be a statement on motions or if any other means will be taken to ensure a review of the conference in this House and, if necessary, a debate on current unemployment not only in Canada but in the other six countries?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no plans to arrange an early debate on unemployment. I have been asked to arrange debates on northern pipelines and national unity. I believe that the subject of unemployment, so important to all of us, could be appropriately set down for the allotted day debate which is to take place on Friday this week.
5454

May 10, 1977
* Oral Questions SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


SUGGESTED REVIEW OF TARIFF BOARD REPORT ON COMPUTER INDUSTRY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology? As the unemployment situation is undoubtedly partly to be blamed on the lack of productivity in Canadian industry, and as Canadian productivity gains were literally the lowest among the seven countries attending the London conference, would the minister indicate if he has reviewed this dragging of Canadian productivity gains, to determine why we are faltering so badly? Specifically, has he reviewed the Tariff Board report of the computer industry, which has recommended full-scale tariff reductions with respect to that industry in the earnest hope that productivity will be helped in Canada?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not reviewed that report, but I shall certainly be pleased to do so.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Considering that only 5,000 jobs were created in the province of Quebec those last 12 months, that the labour force increased by 53,000 and that in his last budget the Minister of Finance promised the creation of 150,000 jobs in Canada, can the minister tell the House how many of the 150,000 jobs promised are going to be created, particularly in the province of Quebec?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter a statistical debate with the hon. member without having the figures at my fingertips. I have attended the committee considering the manpower estimates, and in the last eight or nine meetings we have gone over many of these statistics. It should be borne in mind, as the Acting Prime Minister said, that something like 110,000 jobs have been created-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The figure should have been 240,000.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -since December, up to the present. It is significant that employment in fact increased in Quebec over this past month. I do not know whether that is a month over month aberration. I will take a very close look at that, because the rates also fell in Manitoba by a significant number. I do not want to judge future programs on the basis of those two figures which seem to be an aberration. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I ought to have said that unemployment went up.


MEASURES TO IMPROVE ECONOMY OF QUEBEC
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Considering the conditions in Quebec and the importance of restoring economic development which is an essential shortterm objective at the present time, and in view of the interest shown by this government in national unity, could the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell us what are the concrete steps which his government intends to take to restore a more satisfactory economic climate in Quebec. This is important to provide Quebecers with the evidence of economic development within a constitutional context. If such is the case could the minister make at least a few suggestions or recommendations to restore economic development in Quebec in the near future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is surely an overly general question to put during the oral questions period.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: -my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister inform me whether anyone in his department has entered into a copyright arrangement with any members of my staff for the use of my name in recent publications, the use of which might cast aspersions on my good character?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: In other words, did he ever request permission to use the words, "Garbage Gus"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That question was an abuse of the question period.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That question is garbage.


POSSIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING RAILWAY AS ALTERNATIVE TO NORTHERN PIPELINE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the general appearance of the member opposite would indicate that he does not lift up garbage. I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and ask him what, if anything, has been done in the last two or three years
May 10, 1977

Oral Questions
for the purpose of ascertaining whether railroads would provide an alternative to pipelines and, at the same time, meet the serious problem of degradation of the environment?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I know work was done on such a project. 1 believe that work indicated that although such a project might be technically feasible, it would be environmentally damaging.


An hon. Member:: But not as damaging as a pipeline.


Alastair William Gillespie: In economic terms, it would be very expensive. Although these figures may not be precisely accurate, they show that in order to duplicate the throughput of a pipeline, you would require say a 30 car or 100 car train going by about every 45 minutes. The figures are of that order. Clearly, the economics of the proposals place it on a far less attractive basis than that of the pipeline.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have figures which indicate that the proposal would require 20 trains per day, not the number the minister mentioned. Further, I should like the minister to bring his statistics up to date. I am told that consideration is not being given to the proposal because of the cost, but that does not agree at all with the very full investigation made by the group at Queen's University. In that connection, I ask if the higher echelons of the civil service oppose the railroad, and if Mr. Aguin, a top transport department official said two years ago that if pipelines were proven to be ineffective because of the danger to the environment and the like, as was pointed out in the Berger Report, then and only then the question of a railroad would be considered.
I ask the minister whether the government is giving any consideration to a railroad which would provide tremendous employment not only in the production of extra railway facilities but also in continuing work. Why is the minister so definitely set against a course which has been recommended quite widely but which the higher echelons of the civil service apparently oppose. The minister, apparently suffering from the osmosis of their opinions, takes the same view.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I seek out the best environmental information I can get and the best economic advice I can get. I think if the right hon. member were to reflect for a moment on his figures concerning the number of trains per day which would be needed, he would see that his figures are not inconsistent with mine. Much depends, of course, on how many cars there are in each train. Clearly, he should recognize that trains going by at 60 or 70 miles an hour at least every hour or hour and 20 minutes are likely to pose a greater environmental hazard to the north than a quiet subterranean pipeline. I can reassure the right hon. gentleman that we took seriously those considerations. We looked at them, and they just did not seem to stand up.


PRIORITY OF UNITED STATES ENERGY NEEDS OVER SETTLEMENT OF NATIVE LAND CLAIMS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In his report, Justice Berger said and I quote:
If we build the pipeline now there is every reason to believe that the history of northern native peoples will proceed along the same lamentable course as that of native people in so many other places.
Since a government decision to override that advice and basically to write off the native people of the north will come largely on the advice of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, may I ask the minister whether he now believes that the United States energy interests should take priority over the settlement and implementation of the native claims in the Northwest Territories.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, with all deference to the hon. member, I think that is an insulting question. Quite clearly the government is so concerned about the kinds of problems about which the hon. member is concerned that they commissioned Mr. Justice Berger to look into the question. There has never been any question in our minds that the Canadian interest, and that includes the interest of all Canadians and in particular the interest of the northern peoples, would come well ahead of any interests of the Americans south of the border.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Walter (Wally) Firth: I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would like a yes or no answer. Does the minister agree with the major recommendations of the Berger report?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will get my answer in due course.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Since
80016-5}^

May 10, 1977
Oral Questions
this is May 10, the last day for the public to write to the CRTC alleging bias or about complaints with regard to CBC programming and since I gave the minister notice of my question, will she tell the House how many members, and in particular how many cabinet ministers, have complained in writing to the CRTC about bias or balancing in CBC programming?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: I thank the hon. member for the notice he gave me of this question. To date, a total of 945 letters have been received by the CRTC. However, there was no breakdown as to whether those letters came from members of parliament or from cabinet ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NUMBER OF MINISTERS COMPLAINING ABOUT BIAS IN CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION PROGRAMMING
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If it is not asking too much of the ministry or the CRTC, I wonder if it would be possible tomorrow or some other day later in the week to break down, not by names but by status the people who wrote the 945 letters so that the minister can tell us whether any ministers have written in literate form, either bilingual or unilingual, setting out detailed complaints about bias and balance in CBC programming. In order to expedite any sup-plementaries and/or to further the business later in the week, if no ministers have written setting out in literate form, in bilingual or unilingual prose, the complaints about the CBC programming, will she talk to the Prime Minister when he returns to see if in fact the ministry will decide there is any purpose to be served by proceeding with an inquiry when, using the Prime Minister's own words, no specific allegations have been made.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I must first tell the hon. member there is no such thing as bilingual prose. Therefore, these letters would have been written in either English or French. The CRTC is very reluctant to give me this kind of breakdown. In their view, letters from ordinary citizens are equal to any letter that might be received from a member of parliament or a minister, as Mr. Boyle told me on "Cross Country Check-Up", if the hon. member was listening.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that unemployment figures in the province of Newfoundland have reached the unprecedented and disastrous rate of 19.2 per cent, figures which will increase drastically with the impending closure of one industry, is the

minister now prepared to implement the "emergency response" segment of the Canada Works Program in the province of Newfoundland?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, our officials are meeting with representatives from the company and with governmental officials in that area to determine if and how the emergency response part of Canada Works might be made applicable. I am not in a position to make any comment on that right now.


CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES TO CO-ORDINATE JOB-CREATION PROGRAMS
Jack Marshall: In
view of the fact there is an alarming rate of unemployment in all of the Atlantic region, and indeed right across Canada, is the minister prepared to call a federal-provincial conference to co-ordinate all federal-provincial programs in order to provide jobs in this country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, there is close co-ordination now between the various levels of government working in concert on a particularly difficult problem in that area.


CANADIAN POSITION ON GATT FORMULA FOR REDUCTION OF TARIFFS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Given the concern which many areas of the secondary manufacturing industry in Canada have regarding the apparent trends of the GATT negotiations, will the minister indicate whether our negotiating team or the government has accepted or is favourably disposed to the proposed formula which calls for a reduction of about 50 per cent in tariffs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a discussion is now going on and a tariff reduction is proposed to improve the flow of trade exchanges across the world. Of course, the tariff problem is only one aspect of it; there is also the problem of tariff barriers which may be as important as tariffs themselves, and all that requires extremely complex negotiations which should not come to an end before 1978. We are following the situation very closely and will keep the House informed on that.


REPRESENTATIONS FROM APPLIANCE AND ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES ON GATT TARIFF FORMULA-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Bruce Halliday: Has the minister received many representations from management and labour, and in
May 10, 1977

particular is he aware of the anxieties of the workers in the manufacturing of component parts for the appliance, electronics and communications industries, and what steps is the government taking to protect their jobs should there be a cut in tariffs in these items?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the problem is extremely complex. Of course, in some areas, a tariff reduction would foster exports of Canadian manufactured goods. In other areas, a tariff reduction could create problems for existing industries. We are looking into all aspects of the problem and hoping that the negotiations will benefit the whole country.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?
Since the Domtar Company expects to shut down its East Angus plant, which involves the lay-off of some 570 workers and economically affects over 300 other workers, close to 900 workers all told, can the minister tell the House what measures the government can and intends to take to counteract the current economic factors and to brighten long term perspectives for pulp and paper plants, measures which could be so efficient as to prevent the disappearance of jobs for more than 900 workers, who represent more than half the labour force in the third most important town in my riding and nearly 5 per cent of the labour force of my riding as a whole?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is of course an extremely difficult problem. As we know, the pulp and paper industry is presently going through a rather complicated period because competition is becoming ever more difficult and because of the fact that, among other things, some of our plants have become obsolete and the hourly rate is higher than in the south of the United States, which makes the situation extremely complex.
I have not had the opportunity to review the situation of the Domtar plant in East Angus. I shall inquire to see whether there are any workable solutions and, if so, I shall be tremendously pleased to make all my departmental services available.


TRANSPORT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. It deals
Oral Questions
with the present unemployment situation, particularly in northern Ontario where the unemployment rate is running in excess of 12 per cent. Will the minister reconsider his decision to reduce services in the Canadian lock at Sault Ste. Marie, a move which can only discourage the use of that lock and ultimately lead to its closure and the loss of an additional 50 jobs in the area? If that is not the minister's intention, will he undertake to see that the Sault lock is fully utilized, rather than proceed with a decision which can only aggravate the unemployment situation?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady seems to have missed the facts of the case. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority had indicated its intention to reduce the number of hours the lock was open, but after further consideration I asked the Seaway Authority to avoid this restriction at this time while the whole question of the future of a lock at that position is considered. 1 think it is generally agreed on all sides that for the lock to be useful over the long term a larger capacity is required than is the present case, and that very serious capital question has to be examined carefully. While this study is going on the Seaway Authority has avoided any restriction in the volume of work being provided which it had originally planned.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given the statement made by the minister in the House on March 29, when the proposal was made that services might be reduced in this area, is the minister now stating unequivocally that there will be no reduction of services in the lock at Sault Ste. Marie for this summer period and, indeed, into the ongoing future?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will send the hon. member the announcement which indicates that a restriction has been placed on any change in work until the study regarding the future of the lock is completed.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. When he appeared recently before the external affairs committee, the new president of CIDA stated very clearly his "grave concern" about the planned move of CIDA to new offices in Hull. His objections are based on the disruption that such a move will entail at precisely the time when major administrative reforms are being undertaken. Given these objections and the vital importance of sustaining the momentum for administrative reform at CIDA, would the minister undertake to have the matter of the move to Hull reviewed by the government with a view to postponing or stopping the move?

May 10, 1977
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As a beginning, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly discuss the question with the president of CIDA and determine what his misgivings are, and then discuss the matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Multiculturalism). As the result of a statement made by the former minister responsible for multiculturalism in a speech delivered in Edmonton on January 29 of this year regarding further assistance to multicultural groups, I asked the new minister of multiculturalism yesterday if he is prepared to provide assistance in connection with projects to improve teaching skills of teachers involved in third language training in Canada's supplementary schools, and as well if he is prepared to provide support for the operation of supplementary schools in third language instruction. The minister replied, in essence, that he would look into it. I would like to ask the minister if he is now in a position to give me the answer.


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform hon. members of the government's continued intention to provide support for cultural retention for all of Canada's cultural groups. As all hon. members will recall, all parties in the House were ardent and unanimous supporters of the multiculturalism policy.


An hon. Member:: You are reading your answer.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Just as you read your questions. Even the right hon. gentleman raises questions once in a while and everybody reads research papers, so I do not see why I cannot read my answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: This policy recognized that the cultural value of many languages would not weaken the position of Canada's two official languages. 1 have instructed my officials to study all programming possibilities in recognizing the cultural value of heritage languages, and not only those referred to by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe. 1 expect that program alternatives will be brought forward for my consideration in the very near future and that I will be able to further detail my government's position at that time. I am sure that the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe will enthusiastically support any recommendations I may make in this area as much as he has indicated his concern for the immediate implementation of the proposed programs he referred to yesterday.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Unemployment continues at exceedingly high levels in Pictou county, and indeed in all of Nova Scotia, and yet another DREE assisted industry, Electrohome Limited, which has benefitted from a $1.9 million allotment from DREE, has closed its doors after shipping some of their equipment to Ontario. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Minister of Regional Economic Expansion what measures are about to be taken to recover, or at least explore the possibility of recovering, some of this DREE allotment in this industry, as in others, as is required by law, and to keep closer control over situations such as this?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of the specific details of the case mentioned by the hon. member, but I will endeavour to get information and will get back to him as soon as possible.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and concerns some of the statements made in the Berger Report about Beaufort Sea drilling. Has Canada received any representations concerning oil spill risk in the general Arctic from any of the neighbouring countries with which Canada shares the Arctic, either from the United States or from the Soviet Union? If so, can the minister advise the House what kinds of representations we have received and whether any negotiations are underway with countries in the Arctic in terms of oil spill technology, oil spill clean-up or co-operation in developing Arctic resources, in view of the very high environmental risk in that area?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with representations made on behalf of the government of the United States expressing concern, concern which we share, about the risk involved in Beaufort Sea drilling. In fact, we have kept them closely informed of our procedures in the last year. We will also inform them of the changes we are asking for this year if drilling goes ahead. We are sharing information with the United States government. As for sharing information with the Soviet authorities, I would have to check the record to know exactly where we are with that one.
May 10, 1977


SUGGESTED INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DEVELOPMENT OF ARCTIC
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister advise the House, in view of the co-operation which is needed in the Arctic, whether he favours an international conference of the polar countries in terms of the development of the Arctic; and in view of the recommendations in the report, would the minister also advise the House whether he looks favourably upon the formation of a national wilderness park on the slope, upon the whale sanctuary as outlined in the report, and also upon the bird sanctuary in the Mackenzie delta?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will have to admit to the hon. member that having just returned to Ottawa at lunch time I have not yet had a chance to read the Berger report; I have read only press reports on the report at this time. I am certainly in favour of any exchange of information with the international community on problems which are as vital as these.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
During the year 1976-77, fluid milk producers managed to get 25 per cent of the quotas of manufacturing milk producers through the producers' boards, which situation is unfair and has reduced some manufacturing milk producers' quotas to what they were in 1971; can the minister tell us whether he is aware of that situation and, if so, what does he intend to do to improve it?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are meeting in the supply management committee tomorrow with, I hope, a majority of the ministers of agriculture concerned with this dairy problem. I understand there has been some inequity in the programs administered by the provinces and by the Canadian Dairy Commission. I do not think there are very many things which are perfect in this world, either.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Precisely to guarantee fairness to manufacturing milk producers, can the minister tell us whether he intends to suggest to them or their boards that they cancel present manufacturing milk quotas now held by the fluid milk producers in order to
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
redistribute them among the manufacturing milk producers so that their production can reflect the year 1975-76?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all the quotas that come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Dairy Commission are administered by the provinces within the provinces. They are given a share of the national quota, and they administer them within the provinces.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As 40 per cent of all construction workers in metropolitan Montreal are unemployed, and bearing in mind the severe rate of unemployment in the manufacturing industry in Montreal, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to make it a designated area?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that when the cabinet or government have taken a decision with regard to the possibility of giving assistance to the Montreal area, I shall have the wholehearted support of my colleagues of the opposition, including of course, the hon. member for Hochelaga.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. This is a day which is auspicious in the life of government, and I daresay of this parliament, because it marks the first anniversary of the Prime Minister's statement that separatism in Canada is dead. I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister could inform the House whether it is the intention of this government to honour this day by making any other predictions.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I notified your office on Friday about a question of privilege. It was to be pursued yesterday, but the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) was not in the House; therefore, I wish to pursue it today.

May 10, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
In 1975 the minister of labour named Dean W. D. L. Finn, from the University of British Columbia, to head a one-man commission to investigate health and safety in grain elevators on the British Columbia waterfront. This commission was established following a tragic incident on October 3, 1975, in which five men died in a fire at the Burrard terminal. Dean Finn's report, which the Minister of Labour has had since October 7, details a potentially chummy relationship between some of the grain company management officials and the federal labour inspectors who have failed properly to enforce the law and safety regulations.
In his report, Dean Finn says working conditions in grain elevators are hazardous because the companies are behind the times in controlling explosive grain dust, use of electrical equipment is not up to standard, and they are casual in their use of pesticides. Not only has the governement failed to act on the Finn report, but it has failed to act following previous elevator disasters and investigations.
In the House, on April 20, 1977, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) directed a question to the Minister of Labour as follows:
In view of the recent government report on health and safety conditions in the country's grain elevators, which describes working conditions as deplorable at best, will the minister inform the House what action his department will be taking to ensure that the health and safety of Canada's 31,000 grain handlers will be protected?
The Minister of Labour replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the hon. member for his expression of interest in this particular matter. It is a particularly troublesome matter. The department has upgraded its regulations very substantially to require a much higher level of safety and attention to the environment of grain handlers working in this country. We have also appointed a commission headed by Dr. Finn of the University of British Columbia.
The Minister of Labour went on to say that the final report of that commission had not been received. Last Friday, May 6, I pursued the same matter with the Minister of Labour in response to an article which had appeared in the Vancouver Sun on the previous Saturday which stated that the Minister of Labour had received the final report. I asked him about that final report and he said:
Dr. Finn's group has been studying the matter. When the report is available we will do what we did in the case of the Cape Breton mines-
I went on to ask him, and I quote from Hansard the following:
I would like to ask the minister whether he can confirm that he has now had the report since last October 7, and some of the unions have had it for five months.
The Minister of Labour said:
We do not have the final report. The hon. member may very well be dealing with the reports and Findings of Dr. Finn. As he has progressed, naturally he has made his findings available to the parties who are co-operating with him to ensure the highest standards. As these Findings and views are made known, it is in the interest of all parties and, I am sure, Dr. Finn's wish, that they receive them in a piecemeal fashion, so to say, so that action can be taken concurrently with the progress of the inquiry.
He went on to say they had not received the final report. Our offices have contacted Dean Finn, who has confirmed that the minister received the final report last October. The minister has either been misleading the House, misinforming the

House, or he just does not know what goes on in his department. We have also contacted numerous officials in the minister's department and they confirmed that they have had the report since last October, and that the details in the Vancouver Sun article which talks about the report being in the hands of the minister last October 7 are accurate. These are officials in the minister's own department.
Given the points I have already raised, that this is a serious health and safety problem and that the minister has had the report for a long time, I have to conclude the minister is misleading the House or he is being very negligent in his duties as Minister of Labour. Mr. Speaker, if you find I have a legitimate point of privilege, I am prepared to move a motion referring the apparent misleading of the House by the Minister of Labour to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should advise the House and the hon. member that I am pleased to detect the tremendous interest that not only the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is displaying but also that of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) in this very serious situation on the west coast.
Of course, this tragedy happened some time ago. We acted with dispatch in having the union and management come together, almost immediately, with respect to the constitution of an inquiry under Dr. Finn and detailing terms of reference so that he could do an adequate job. During all this activity of an urgent nature, undertaken with sincerity not only by myself but my officials and the interested parties concerned, there was no expression of interest shown in the House of Commons by any of the opposition members. Now the question of the report is raised. It is quite true that the interpretation of my remarks could be misleading: I concede that, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that the report of Dr. Finn was given to the parties the minute it was ready in its English version so that action could be taken right away.
As 1 indicated in my answer to the hon. member, it is not a matter you can delay. An official report is a report that is in both official languages and in my hands in that official way. Then I can decide to table it in the House of Commons in the appropriate fashion. That is the only fashion that is appropriate in terms of the official receipt and tabling of the report, when it is ready in both official languages. We did not feel we could wait until the translation was completed. It was in the English language only, and we wanted it in the hands of the parties so that it could be acted upon. That, indeed, happened. I would expect the French version to be completed within a week to ten days.


An hon. Member:: Seven months.


John Carr Munro: It is a very detailed and technical report. Our translation services have had other reports which require translation. I agree that it sounds like a long time, but there is constant urging to get reports like this put into both official languages. Other priorities had to be
May 10, 1977

served. In the meantime, though, the findings of Dr. Finn have been made known to the parties for action. So the fact that the report has not been officially tabled in the House has not been allowed to delay action with respect to it.
Order Paper Questions
not subject to infection, so that noxious weeds such as Eurasian water milfoil do not get into our water systems.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
That is the situation. I hope to be able to place the report in the hands of all members within the next two weeks when it can be presented in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) gave the Chair notice of a question of privilege last Friday. Yesterday he indicated he would prefer to raise it in the presence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) who was unavoidably absent. Therefore, he brings it forward today. It raises the question of the possibility of the House being misled by the minister's answers concerning the tabling of a report. In any event, the minister has now explained the reason for his answers. He concedes that they may have appeared to mislead the House but places an interpretation upon his answers which absolves him of any culpability in that regard. Other members may have a different interpretation, but that falls within the area of disagreement and dispute; it does not fall within the area of privilege.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I rise on a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I did not have an opportunity to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, might I make a brief representation to him? When he speaks in the debate this afternoon, would he deal with the question of the steps which are being taken to monitor more closely DREE-assisted industries which receive substantial funding and subsequently close? What steps are being taken to recover any loss of funds which result from the failure of these companies to fulfil their commitments?
* *
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 926, 1,211, 1,212, 1,251, 1,468, 1,713, 1,848, 1,860, 1,932, 2,001, 2,012, 2,051, 2,060, 2,230, 2,271, 2,274, 2,275, 2,293 and 2,366.


Mr. Muir: In each year since 1965, what has been the total federal allocation to basic research directed towards an understanding of the causes of cancer?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
Research (average)
(Including testing	Evaluation (Including
and salaries)	evaluation and salaries)
1975-1976 1974-1975 1973-1974 1972-1973 1965-1972


[Stage Direction]
240,000 (Estimated)
[Stage Direction]
In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned:
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should realize that the Chair will not allow him to make such a brief representation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
1974-1975
1972-1973
*4,751,819
4,387,506
3,752,149
3,515,318
3,316,297
Note: Information for the years previous to 1971-72 is not available.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-419, to amend the Plant Quarantine Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Plant Quarantine Act to ensure that aquatic plants coming into Canada, for example in aquariums containing exotic fish, are


NON-MEDICAL USE OF DRUGS DIRECTORATE
Mr. Stanfield: What, if any, are the criteria employed by the Department of National Health and Welfare's Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate in determining which groups, associations, projects, agencies or individuals qualify for a contribution or grant for (a) information/education projects (b) innovative projects (c) research, sociological and biomedical studies dealing with the non-medical use of drugs?


Marc Lalonde: (a) and (b) Through the Alcohol, Tobacco and Drug Resources Fund, the Department of National Health and Welfare's Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate makes contributions to projects which meet the directorate's national program goals. These goals are defined within well-established
5462

May 10, 1977
Order Paper Questions
major result areas, of which the following relate more specifically to the Alcohol, Tobacco and Drug Resources Fund: effective information and advocacy programs; effective education programs; effective means of early identification and intervention; effective treatment and rehabilitation measures. The explicit purposes of the fund are: to facilitate community mobilization and action that support the achievement of priority goals; to experiment with and demonstrate the effectiveness of new programs or methodologies that have application beyond the immediate location of the project; and to facilitate joint action with one or more provinces, voluntary or professional groups or businesses where such action will facilitate achievement of priority goals and will have application beyond the immediate location of the project. Any public or private health or social service agency, community or citizens' organization or individual, with demonstrated ability to conceptualize, develop and manage demonstration projects in the abovenoted areas, is eligible for consideration for financial support under the Alcohol, Tobacco and Drug Resources Fund, (c) The extramural research programs of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate have as their primary function the encouragement and support of research directed to providing information about all facets of the non-medical use of drugs. The directorate is particularly interested in research projects which will result in the development of scientific information pertinent to prevention, treatment and rehabilitation programs dealing with problems associated with drug abuse. Applications are assessed for scientific merit with particular reference to the adequacy of the methodology including specification of the subject sample, procedures, statistical design and analysis, when appropriate. Investigators holding an academic appointment in any Canadian educational institution, having an affiliation with an accredited treatment facility, or holding an appointment in a private or public research laboratory are eligible to apply for research support under this program. Occasionally proposals from other persons possessing less formal qualifications for research but having special interest and opportunities relevant to the NMUD priorities will be considered for support.


NON-MEDICAL USE OF MOOD-ALTERING SUBSTANCES PROGRAM
Mr. Stanfield: What, if any, are the criteria employed by the Department of National Health and Welfare under the Non-Medical Use of Mood-Altering Substances Programme in determining which groups, associations, projects, agencies or individuals qualify for a contribution or grant for (a) information/education projects dealing with the non-medical use of drugs (b) innovative projects dealing with mood-altering substances (1975-76) (c) research, sociological and biomedical studies dealing with the non-medical use of drugs?


Marc Lalonde: (a), (b) and (c) Please see answer to Question No. 1,211 answered this day.


REPORT ON RAILWAY PENSIONS
Mr. Jones: 1.	Will the report on railway pensions be tabled in the House and, if so, on what date?
2.	Is the delay in tabling due to translation difficulties and, if so, will the government consider tabling the English version immediately?
3.	Will the report be implemented and, if so, on what date?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. It is
not customary to table industrial inquiry commission reports, but the report was released in both official languages to all concerned, including members of parliament, at the end of January, 1977.
3.	Implementation of the report will be up to all parties concerned after full consideration of its implications.


STORAGE OF POWDERED MILK AND BUTTER
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): What was the amount of (a) powdered milk (b) butter in storage in Canada as of December 31, 1976 and, in each case, in what locations and in what quantities?


Eugene Whelan: (a) Stocks for skim milk powder held by the Canadian Dairy Commission, not including stocks held by the private trade, at December 31, 1976, were as follows:
Province	Pounds
Maritimes	1,818,100
Quebec	249,140,850
Ontario	20,924,250
Manitoba	7,740,700
Alberta	13,802,350
Saskatchewan	3,460,150
British Columbia	546,900
Total in Canada	297,433,300
(b) Stocks for creamery butter held by the Canadian Dairy Commission, not including stocks held by the private trade, at	
December 31, 1976, were as follows:	
Province	Pounds
Maritimes	632,072
Quebec	33,197,472
Ontario	6,308,792
Manitoba	520,408
Alberta	334,488
British Columbia	3,879,624
Total in Canada	44,872,856


STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. Howie: For the year 1976, did the Department of National Health and Welfare have any student summer employment programmes in (a) Canada (b) New Bruns-
May 10, 1977

wick and, if so, in each case (i) what were they (ii) how many persons were given direct summer employment and what were the wages (iii) what was the cost?


Marc Lalonde: In 1976, the Department of National Health and Welfare sponsored summer student employment through the following channels: The Health Activities Summer Employment Program (HASEPS) provided students with work experience in the health field through the funding of projects undertaken by volunteer health and health related organizations. The Non-Medical Use of Drugs Support to Community Agencies Program provided students with employment through
(i)
Number of Students
HASEPS Program
Canada	381
New Brunswick	21
Non-Medical Use of Drugs Support to Community Agencies Program
Canada	194
New Brunswick	10
Direct Departmental Hiring Canada
New Brunswick	nil
Total
Number of Students 692
Note: (iii) Operational Costs: HASEPS: Operational costs for projects were allowed for approved HASEPS projects in an amount not to exceed 10 per cent of salary expenses. These costs covered expenses for the successful completion of a project such as printing, travel, telephone, rental of equipment and office supplies. The Non-Medical Use of Drugs Support to Community Agencies Program: Operational costs represent expenditures incurred by projects such as rental of premises, telephone, transportation, printing and office supplies. Operational costs were not to exceed 15 per cent of salary expenses. Normal direct summer hiring: The cost for direct departmental hiring involved the use of continuing departmental staff and hence is not separately identifiable.


PONCEAU SX (RED DYE No. 4)
Mr. Yewchuk: By category and brand, to which prepared foods on sale in Canada is it permitted for a manufacturer to add Ponceau SX (Red Dye No. 4)?


Marc Lalonde: Ponceau SX may be added to the following categories of foods: fruit Peel; glazed fruits; maraschino cherries. The Food and Drug Regulations do not, at present, require manufacturers of food products to inform the Health Protection Branch of the presence of this colour in their products.
Order Paper Questions
projects funded for the purpose of gathering and distributing information on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs or evaluating the existing programs and services. The aim of the program was to support communities in their endeavours to cope with problems of drug abuse with a high priority given to problems related to abuse of alcohol. Through normal direct summer hiring the department was able to provide summer employment to students, (a) and (b) (i), (ii) and (iii):
(ii)	(iii)
Wages and	Operational
Benefits	Costs
$575,139.34	$47,113.03
$ 29,246.47	$ 2,012.00
$388,666.00	$62,104.00
$ 17,091.00	$ 1,264.00
	operational costs
$297,648.60	New Brunswick
nil	nil
Total	Total
Wages and	Operational
Benefits	Costs
$1,261,453.94	$109,217.03


FOREIGN CONTRACTS FOR COIN PRODUCTION
Mr. Huntington: 1.	Are the new foreign contracts for coin production with Bangladesh, Barbados, Costa Rica, Israel, Nicaragua, Panama and Portugal on a cash payment basis and, if not, are they financed through CIDA and/or EDC?
2.	If such contracts are financed through CIDA and/or EDC, what are the terms in each case?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by Supply and Services Canada and Export Development Corporation as follows: 1. The only contract assisted financially by CIDA is the one with the government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.
2. CIDA, through a commodity grant, has participated in the Bangladesh order by providing shipping costs and metals from which the coins are made. The Government of Bangladesh pays the RCM for all other production costs via an irrevocable Letter of Credit.
1 and 2. Export Development Corporation has no contract.


HANSEN'S DISEASE
Mr. Epp: 1.	How many documented cases of Hansen's disease (Leprosy) exist at the present time in (a) British Columbia (b) Alberta (c) Saskatchewan (d) Manitoba (e) Ontario (f) Quebec (g) New Brunswick (h) Nova Scotia (i) Prince Edward Island (j) Newfoundland?
2.	How many documented cases of Hansen's disease existed in Canada in (a) 1965 (b) 1970 (c) 1975?
8OOI6-6V2

May 10, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3.	What record is there in Canada of contagion of Hansen's disease, either in the traditional way, or through the possibility of genetics?


Marc Lalonde: 1. (a) British Columbia 9; (b) Alberta 5; (c) Saskatchewan 2; (d) Manitoba 6; (e) Ontario 68; (0 Quebec 8; (g) New Brunswick 0; (h) Nova Scotia 0; (i) Prince Edward Island 0; (j) Newfoundland 1.
2.	(a) 38; (b) 51; (c) 92.
3.	Information available on record indicates that less than one third of the registered cases of Leprosy may still be infectious. All of those infected persons, with only one possible exception, acquired the disease outside of Canada, while residing in endemic areas. Effective treatment is available and communicability is considered low. There is no evidence to indicate that genetic factors play a role in the actual transmission of Hansen's disease.


ESTABLISHMENT OF A CANADIAN SOURCE OF SUPPLY FOR INFLUENZA VACCINES
Mr. Yewchuk: Did the Armand Frappier Institute receive government funding in 1976 for the purpose of establishing a Canadian source of supply for influenza vaccines and, if so, in what amount?


Marc Lalonde: Yes. During the fiscal year 1975-76, the Armand Frappier Institute received $200,000 from the Department of National Health and Welfare to establish a Canadian source of supply for influenza vaccines.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension?
2.	Of the recipients of the Old Age Security pension, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
3.	Of those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are receiving the full amount?
4.	What is the average amount, in Canada, and in each province, being received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security pension?
5.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside of Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces, what is the number for each province?


Marc Lalonde: 1	2	3
Number of
Province	Number of	Number of	peopleor	people	people	receivingTerritory	receiving OAS receiving GIS maximum GIS
Newfoundland Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec
37,419	30,714	19,60713,376	9,915	4,57881,146	54,191	24,45361,560	41,109	19,231489,582	308,122	144,656

2	3
Province	Number of	Number of	Number of peopleor	people	people	receivingTerritory	receiving OAS	receiving G1S	maximum GISOntario	734,286	342,128	105,916Manitoba	107.188	61,951	21,441Saskatchewan	103,300	56,901	20,439Alberta	136,764	78,229	29,214British Columbia	237,687	123,942	44,457Northwest Territories	1,089	839	720Yukon	584	330	223Total	2,003,981	1,108,371	434,935
Note: The above figures represent persons in receipt of OAS/GIS as of December 1976.
4.	The average amount of guaranteed income supplement received in Canada is $77.29. By province, the average guaranteed income supplement received is as follows: Newfoundland, $84.40; Prince Edward Island, $80.22; Nova Scotia, $80.24; New Brunswick, $81.90; Quebec, $81.35; Ontario, $73.12; Manitoba, $75.52; Saskatchewan, $76.76; Alberta, $76.11; British Columbia, $75.52.
5.	Yes. People who receive the Old Age Security Pension outside of Canada are paid from the regional office in the province in which they last resided. The statistical breakdown is as follows:
Province
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Total
Number of people receiving the
Old Age Security pension outside of Canada
72
351
3,484
5,522
366
2,399
13,928
Note: The above figures represent persons receiving the Old Age Security payments abroad as of December 1976.


CHEDDAR CHEESE PRODUCTION IN ALBERTA
Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	During the past three years, what was the Cheddar cheese production in Alberta as compared to Canada?
2.	In what category has the Cheddar cheese produced in Alberta been classified by inspectors of the Department of Agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: 1.
1974/75
1975/76
1976/January 77
Alberta
(pounds)
4.966.000
6.838.000
5.723.000
Canada
(pounds)
190.560.000
179.399.000
145.674.000

May 10, 1977

2.
1974/75
1975/76
1976/January 77
First Grade (pounds)
4.027.000
4.750.000
4.608.000
Undergrade
(pounds)
711.000 1,163,000
342.000
Not Graded* (pounds) 228,000
925.000
773.000
Grading of Cheddar cheese is not mandatory pursuant to the Canada Dairy Products Act and Regulations.


ANIMAL DISEASES
Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	At federally inspected livestock sales yards, are veterinarians in any way held responsible for the sale of diseased animals?
2.	Has the Health of Animals Branch of the Department of Agriculture considered IBR as an infectious contagious disease and, if so, will it place special emphasis on inspecting and then advising the purchaser of the seriousness of the disease?
3.	Will the government institute in public yards educational posters and pamphlets advising purchasers to isolate all animals purchased for sales yards for a number of weeks in order to eliminate much hardship?


Eugene Whelan: 1. A
veterinarian is at each terminal stockyard to inspect animals for evidence of disease, and animals showing clinical symptoms are not released for breeder or feeder purposes.
2.	Yes. IBR is not uncommon in Canada, and most livestock owners are aware that an acute outbreak can have serious consequences. Wherever possible, the Health of Animals Branch advises purchasers about IBR.
3.	The Health of Animals Branch has always recommended isolation of additions to a herd. IBR is not a disease condition
Order Paper Questions
dealt with under the Animal Disease and Protection Act and Regulations and, therefore, there is no plan to institute educational posters and pamphlets on this disease in public yards, at the federal level.


CONSTRUCTION OF GUY FAVREAU CENTRE-MONTREAL, QUEBEC
Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has it been established when construction will start on the Guy Favreau Centre in Montreal?
2.	What work has been authorized to design teams and what was the suggested date for completion of authorized design work?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No.
2. Design teams have been authorized to proceed with the preparation of structural, electrical, mechanical and architectural working drawings. No date for completion of the authorized design work has been set.


GRAIN ELEVATORS
Mr. Neil: What (a) is the present capacity (b) has been the throughput for the past three crop years, of the terminal elevators located at the Pacific Coast, Churchill, Thunder Bay and the various eastern transfer elevators?


Eugene Whelan: Present Capacity, Receipts and Shipment at Pacific Coast, Thunder Bay, Churchill, Eastern Transfer Elevator
Crop Years 1973-74 to 1975-76
Eastern Transfer Elevators
						Lower Lake	St. Lawrence	
		Pacific Coast	Thunder Bay	Churchill	Bay Ports	Ports	Ports	Maritime Ports
				-bushels-				
(a) Capacity	26,818,500	85,768,100	5,000,000	34,050,000	17,100,000	62,950,000	8,229,300(b) Receipts	1973-74	252,468,015	479,919,513	19,033,118	55,389,786	34,379,852	343,190,986	26,290,8641974-75	213,138,751	442,469,640	22,964,227	53,382,062	39,294,842	315,041,373	30,490,8641975-76	263,682,683	512,212,943	23,272,878	79,713,075	42,532,785	406,482,462	38,212,338(b) Shipments	1973-74	254,797,094	482,128,525	18,846,126	49,489,589	31,040,137	322,262,685	25,518,6351974-75	210,863,482	439,809,652	22,739,461	62,335,642	36,751,546	305,001,459	32,322,9461975-76	260,332,799	520,071,783	23,775,504	69,589,555	43,793,171	408,496,220	34,773,088


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT-RED-HEADED PINE SAWFLY
Mr. Beatty: What is the expected benefit to the taxpayer to be derived from his contribution of $53,342 to Department of Supply and Services' Research and Development grant number 01SU KL013-6-0045 (OSU76-00226) entitled "Tests to demonstrate the safety of an insect virus-nuclear polyhedrosis of the redheaded pine sawfly"?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: DSS contract number 01SUKL013-6-0045 (0SU76-00226), the correct title of which is "Tests of mammalian infectivity and/or toxicity of the nuclear polyhedrosis virus of the red-headed pine sawfly,
Neodiprion lecontei (Fitch)", is part of an on-going research program to develop more effective and safer pest insect control methods. The red-headed pine sawfly is a serious pest of red pine plantations in southern and central Ontario and southcentral Quebec. It causes extensive mortality in young red pine plantations, and damage to jack, Scots, and other pines. These safety trials will provide information required to register the virus for operational use. Once the virus has been registered, the forest manager will have an economical, effective, and environmentally acceptable alternative to the chemical insecticides which must now be used for the control of the red-headed pine sawfly. Treatment will be effective over several years, thus avoiding repeated annual treatments.

May 10, 1977
Order Paper Questions
DND GARBAGE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL CONTRACT OTT76/24969/1


Mr. McKinnon: Is the cost of DND garbage removal and disposal contract, OTT76/24969/1 for the sum of $486,619, let to Charette's General Trucking of Petawawa, Ontario, over ten times the average of four other garbage contracts published in the Weekly Bulletin of Business Opportunities Volume 4, Number 9 and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: No. The contract OTT76/24969/1 is for a period of four years while the other contracts listed are for one or two years. The five contracts are not comparable in terms of the number of pick-up points, frequency of pick-ups, population at the bases or stations and type of service, i.e. containerized vs compacter trucks.
GRANT TO BfiLANGER-TAPPEN COMPANY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PLANT AT ST. BRUNO, COUNTY OF CHAMBLY


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Belanger-Tappen Company request a grant for the construction of a refrigerator plant at St-Bruno, County of Chambly and, if so, has any decision been taken by DREE?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: No. The County of Chambly is not located within the designated area of Quebec under the Regional Development Incentives Act.


NUMBER OF PERSONS IN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING ACCOMMODATION
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): Does the Department of National Health and Welfare keep records of the number of persons in officially recognized senior citizen housing accommodation and, if so, how many (a) are in such accommodation (b) receive the guaranteed annual income supplement in addition to the basic pension?


Marc Lalonde: No. (a) and (b) Information unavailable.


Mr. Clarke:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not celebrating an anniversary such as that referred to by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, but today marks six months since Question No. 1,019 was placed on the order paper on November 10 last. I realize that many dozens of questions are older than that. Some have been on the order paper since October 12, the first day of the second session of the thirtieth parliament. I should like to remind the parliamentary secretary that it is an easy question, one which does not require great study. It concerns federal expenditures on public transportation facilities, and it would be very helpful if the government could answer it soon.


Ralph Goodale: The hon. member raised this point with me informally in the last day or two. I did make some inquiries to determine where the matter stands at the present time. I think

it is fair to say that the question is not as simple as the hon. member suggests. I might also draw attention to the fact that in the course of this session nearly 2,500 questions have been placed on the order paper and that almost 70 per cent of them have been answered already. We are endeavouring to answer all questions as quickly as possible.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the parliamentary secretary was kind enough to inform me that Question No. 642 would be answered today. I presume something occurred to prevent the answer being made available. Is it the intention to answer this question tomorrow?


Ralph Goodale: I am not sure I can give an undertaking that it will be answered tomorrow, but I think it will be in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the government's abandonment of its commitment to develop strong regional economies and its failure to give priority to regional needs in designing national fiscal, transport, energy and trade policies has resulted in a crisis of economic stagnation and unprecedented unemployment in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there has been such day to day concern about the basic fabric and future of this country among Canadians that those who live outside the five eastern provinces tend to overlook the existence of a deepening and widening crisis with respect to the lives and, indeed, the possibilities open to those who live in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. This debate is about Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, presently in the grip of record unemployment and economic stagnation, two regions which would not be in such a position today had the government gone even halfway toward living up to its promise of the late sixties to eradicate regional economic and social disparities.
This debate is about regional development. It is not about the Department of Regional Economic Expansion because the indifferent record of DREE in implementing lasting solutions to what the Economic Council of Canada has described as intolerable levels of disparity across Canada is only one aspect of the government's sad abandonment of this country's have-not regions and their aspirations. This debate is about the indifference, callousness, insensitivity and forgetfulness shown with regard to the legitimate economic needs of Quebec and
May 10, 1977

Atlantic citizens especially on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet colleagues responsible for finance, energy, transport, industry and manpower, to name only a few.
More important still, this debate is about the 408,000 people in eastern Canada who are without jobs, and what this means in terms of their ability to participate in the affairs of Canada, both today and tomorrow, and make a contribution to its development as equals. As a party which is prepared, when it forms a government, to take seriously its responsibilities as they concern the basic needs of those who live in the five eastern provinces, we bring these matters forward.
When you strip away the rhetoric which has been used by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, the fact is that the commitment which was made in the late sixties has not been met. Rather than being reduced, the disparity between the regions has widened. Economic differences have become more exaggerated and more critical. To eradicate or even chip away at disparity, the have-not regions must grow at a rate not just equal to the national level but faster than their wealthier neighbours in the other provinces. Not only has this not been occurring, but it is a fact that we are growing at an even slower pace.
I want to document that in a number of ways, but perhaps nothing stands out more clearly in the failure of this government adequately to deal with regional disparity than the comparison of rates of unemployment between 1970, a year after the department was created, to the end of 1976. In 1970, as the department was getting started in its responsibilities, the unemployment rate in Canada was 5.7 per cent. In the Atlantic provinces it was 6.2 per cent. There was something like an
8.7	per cent differential between the Canadian and the Atlantic averages. In 1971, Canada's rate of unemployment was 6.2 per cent and in the Atlantic region it was 7.1 per cent. In 1972, in Canada it was 6.2 per cent, and in the Atlantic region it was
7.8	per cent. In 1973, in Canada, it was 5.6 per cent, and in the Atlantic region it was 8 per cent. In 1974, in Canada, it was 5.4 per cent and in the Atlantic region it was 8.5 per cent. In 1975 it was 6.9 per cent for Canada, and 9.9 per cent for the Atlantic region. In 1976, 7.1 per cent for Canada and 11 per cent for the Atlantic region.
This indicates an increase in those seven years, during the presumed commitment of the federal government to alleviate regional disparity, of an unemployment rate that started by being 8.7 per cent greater than the national average and at the end of last year stood at 55 per cent greater. If that is evidence of the kind of commitment or performance of the government, then heaven deliver us from it because it is certainly not something that citizens in Atlantic Canada or Quebec can afford for a minute longer.
I want to indicate the implications of this in terms of the present situation with respect to private investment, something that this government has theoretically addressed in recent budgets. The disparity is widening in private investment, the
Regional Unemployment
crucial source of new jobs and higher incomes in any region. In terms of the capital investment intentions of the private sector in manufacturing, for Canada they are up by a very modest 3.5 per cent, but for Newfoundland they are down 11.6 per cent; for Prince Edward Island, down 35.6 per cent; for Nova Scotia, down 8 per cent; for New Brunswick, down 11.6 per cent; and for the Atlantic region as a whole, they are down 10.7 per cent. As I said a moment ago, they are up for Canada by 3.5 per cent.
It is obvious that the disparity is widening in productivity and output. In terms of the real domestic output for 1976, the Canadian average was 4.6 per cent, but Quebec suffered the lowest rise of all ten provinces, with 2.9 per cent. In the other eastern provinces there was a domestic rise of 3.1 per cent in Newfoundland to 3.8 per cent in Nova Scotia, all well below the Canadian average. It is obvious that disparity is widening in unemployment where after each successive business downturn the gap between the rest of Canada and Quebec and the Atlantic provinces does not only remain greater but is increased. Last year, with almost half of Canada's unemployed in the five eastern provinces, only 18 per cent of the new jobs were created in those five provinces, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) had the gall in a speech which he made recently on his latest budget to admit that his budget is not going to change the situation during the upcoming year. That is some commitment to the alleviation of regional disparity!
I believe it is possible to identify two highly significant reasons why the present government, with the vast resources at its disposal, has presided over the widening of the disparity gap between our regions. The first is that they have depended almost totally on transfer payments by the two individual governments as a solution to disparity. They have done almost nothing to help our so-called have-not regions to develop the economic base necessary to sustain themselves. For instance, in 1975-76 we find that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion spent in the Atlantic provinces a total of $204 million. That compares with equalization and transfer payments to provincial governments of $1.2 billion. The productive investment in the Atlantic region, therefore, amounted to less than one-sixth of the moneys that were spent there for the maintenance of services on a provincial basis. This does not even take into account the additional $1.3 billion spent in the regions under family allowances, pensions and unemployment insurance.
All of this is bad enough, but if you compare the figures that were tabled a few nights ago by the minister responsible for DREE (Mr. Lessard) in the committee, you will see the alarming developments that are taking place with respect to the expenditure of federal funds. In 1971-72, DREE program expenditures were listed at $141.2 million, while equalization and transfer payments to provincial governments stood at $696.2 million. In 1975-76, however, DREE program expenditures had only increased, as I said, to $204 million, whereas equalization and transfer payments had risen to $1,238.4 million, indicating that the program expenditures of DREE,

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
the money that is being expended to create employment, to create a more productive climate, has increased something like 65 per cent over that five-year period-65 per cent to 70 per cent-but the transfer payments for that same time period increased well over 90 per cent. This gives an indication of the lack of awareness or commitment in the performance of the present government with respect to dealing effectively with long-term and chronic unemployment situations.
It seems to me that the inability to realize development opportunities in eastern Canada has its most direct impact on employment. By 1974, as a direct result of the negative balance of trade between the Atlantic region and the other provinces, there was a net imbalance of some $1.5 billion, with a loss to the region of 60,486 jobs, meaning, quite frankly, that what we are faced with here by the administration of this government is a program of greater and greater dependency in which we may be in some way or other sustaining or maintaining a capacity to consume in the Atlantic provinces, but we are moving farther and farther away from creating viable, effective and self-actuating economies where employment can be created in the Atlantic region.
I realize that no single department can be expected by itself successfully to carry out the task of eradicating disparity, and that is why I said at the outset that I do not want to deal here exclusively or even primarily with DREE. I believe, as a matter of fact, that there must be the most closely co-ordinated policies and programs of all major federal departments. My colleagues, during the course of the debate today, will outline in specific terms what we expect to hear from the departments which manage transportation, energy, fiscal and tariff questions.
I want particularly to deal with the whole question of the fiscal responsibility of the government, because I believe it to be so crucial. As the minister well knows, I have discussed this with him. An initiative was taken within the context of the last budget, the principle of which I believe to be very important. The performance of the actual initiative taken, I think, was nothing more than a throw-away on the part of the government, and I want to deal with that in some substance. The Economic Council of Canada's recent study on regional disparity, entitled, "Living Together", focused much of its discussions on the unrealized potential of fiscal matters as a development tool. They said in one of their recommendations:
We recommend that the mix of fiscal policy instruments used by the federal government... be chosen in such a way as to increase the proportion of national demand going to high unemployment regions.
Therefore, we are not alone in our view that the Minister of Finance should play a special, if not a central, role in regional development. To begin with, we have the failure to date of any kind of active role on the part of this Minister of Finance and this government to recognize, much less to do anything, about the serious inequalities of the Canadian banking system which, in its performance at least, appears to discriminate against the low-growth regions which reinforce their position in the Canadian economy as consumers instead of producers.

If we look at the situation in the first quarter of last year in the Atlantic area, which has almost 10 per cent of Canada's population, in terms of business loans we find that we received 7.3 per cent of business loans, amounting to less than $200,000; 6.7 per cent of business loans, amounting to between $200,000 and $1 million; 6.6 per cent of business loans, between $1 million and $5 million; and 4.7 per cent of those loans over $5 million. Yet with respect to personal loans, those which foster consumption rather than production, the region received more than its share from the Canadian banks, a little over 10 per cent.
Perhaps we can understand why we would not receive the $5 million-plus loans, because we know that in the Atlantic region we operate primarily on a smaller scale with respect to our industrial structure; but in a non-discriminatory financial system we should expect this deficiency to be overcompensated in the small loans category. Yet even for loans guaranteed under the Small Businesses Loans Act only one of the chartered banks even comes close to compensating for the low level of large loans going to the Atlantic region.
To give an idea of the situation as it stands at the present time, the Royal Bank directed 7.8 per cent of its lending under the Small Businesses Loans Act in 1975 to the Atlantic region; Canadian Imperial, 8.3 per cent; Bank of Montreal, 8 per cent; Toronto-Dominion, 0.5 per cent. All chartered banks averaged
8.9	per cent, and the only exception to this record of discrimination was the Bank of Nova Scotia, with 13.8 per cent.
In the creation of permanent jobs in eastern Canada we are obviously going to depend heavily on the private sector, which must be assured access to capital funding if it is to expand. Obviously, these figures are of critical importance to the future role private investment can play in the Atlantic region. Yet in the government's proposals for reform in the Canadian Banking system contained in the white paper on banking last August, no mention was made of the problem of making banks more responsive to the have-not regions' needs. There was no mention of how banking structures might be decentralized to promote local sensitivities. There was no mention of ways in which interest rates or collateral requirements can be made more equitable for the small businessman. There was no mention about how the banks might imaginatively be used to promote new entrepreneurship in low-growth areas. I mention these facts because I think the federal government has a leadership role to play, and to date there has certainly been no such role played by the Minister of Finance. Nor have I heard any of his colleagues, including the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, address themselves to what I believe is a very critical matter.
The failure of the Minister of Finance to take into account the critical needs of our have-not regions is again manifest in the tariff system for which he bears primary responsibility. I believe our tariff system creates enormous difficulty for the underdeveloped regions of the country. It is a system, if I can use a phrase which will have some reminiscences to it, of "loser pay" which protects some of the industrialized portions of the
May 10, 1977

country while thwarting development initiatives in the have-not areas. Even the government of Ontario-Ontario being the industrial heartland of Canada-has recognized the difficulties, the discrimination and bias of our tariffs and publicly stated as recently as its most recent budget that there will be a gradual phase-out and change with respect to the situation concerning tariffs.
By 1974 the people of Atlantic Canada were losing, on balance, $178,516,000 annually, as a result of our tariff system, to other provinces. To put that amount into perspective, it is just under the total combined DREE budget for the four Atlantic provinces in 1975-76 or Vh times DREE spending under RDIA in the region since the program began in 1969. Our tariff structures are truly a system of "loser pay" as far as the Atlantic region is concerned.
However, perhaps no single act better reflected the insensitivity to regional needs of the Minister of Finance than his latest budget. It was an inadequate, almost insulting response to the short-term job needs of Quebec and Atlantic Canada, with its 600,000 man-months or 18'/2 days of work during the next year for each unemployed Canadian. The budget was, quite frankly, a message of despair for millions of Canadians. It has been common knowledge for decades that in times of economic slowdown, regions such as Quebec, and especially Atlantic Canada, are first to be hit by any kind of restraint program which the federal government might exercise, and the last to recover. Yet the budget ignored this elementary fact about the Canadian economy.
There was a refusal to re-examine seriously, as was called for by the leader of my party and by others, government spending priorities in order to bring on stream various labourintensive projects in eastern Canada. We need not just an expansion of short-term job creation which will in most instances leave nothing economically permanent in the community; we need to look at some major job creation projects which will be increasingly valuable in the future.
The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) has repeatedly suggested over the years that there is a tremendous advantage to using Fundy tidal power. Energy is certainly a major cost factor, and this adds a further element of disparity. The government should take an imaginative and positive role with respect to that project. That would do an enormous amount of good for the whole Atlantic region.
The budget was silent on the development needs of the have-not regions except for one single, lonely measure. It proposed an additional investment tax credit above the national allowance of 5 per cent for the Atlantic provinces and Gaspe region, and 2.5 per cent for the remainder of Quebec. This is a measure about which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion appears almost ecstatic, to the point where, without meaning to do so, he mislead this House in saying that it is the first time the Canadian tax system has recognized that there are differences between the various parts of the country. I want to remind the minister that it is not the first time. It is not even the second time. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) recognized the importance of tax
Regional Unemployment
policy as an instrument of regional development as far back as the budget of December 20, 1960, as did the late Prime Minister Pearson in the budget of June 13, 1963.
I can understand the minister waxing enthusiastic in those rare instances when one of his colleagues in the cabinet takes note of regional needs. However, instead of misleading us about the significance of this tax measure, I wonder why the minister did not choose to spell out its impact on the have-not regions.
The budget documents say that extension and enrichment of the investment allowance will put $385 million back into the hands of business. They do not say how much additional funds will go to business in areas starved for investment. Will it be $150 million, $50 million, or $5 million? Yet we are expected to take the minister's word that this is a significant measure in aid of those regions. How effective is this measure to be in generating new investment? How many jobs will it create? I hope the minister will have an opportunity to tell us during the course of this debate. In the face of the government's silence on these essential questions it is difficult not to conclude that this special tax allowance is either not all it is made out to be or, worse still, is next to useless.
There are other questions about this tax allowance which the government, it seems to me, has ignored. Why is the measure only good for three years? Where did those 5 per cent, 7.5 per cent and 10 per cent figures come from? What analysis were they based on which showed that these were the ideal differentials needed to promote regional investment? In fields such as research and development I would have thought something in the range of a 75 per cent to a 100 per cent tax allowance would be required in the Atlantic region. But no, the budget assumes that a simple 5 per cent above what industry in the rich provinces receives will be sufficient to bring research relevant to Atlantic needs up from its present nearzero level. In other words, the government has taken a commendable principle-and I have told the minister it is a commendable principle-of making the tax system sensitive to regional needs, and is now proceeding to bury it with tokenism.
I believe there is enormous potential in the use of federal fiscal powers to combat disparity and equalize opportunities among our regions. Why this government has not risen to the challenge is beyond comprehension. There is much that could be accomplished in promoting regional development goals at the very basis of those structures and institutions which govern our economy. There is much to be achieved in creating new jobs and new investment. Government spending is up, the federal tax intake is up and the national deficit is up, yet the Minister of Finance cannot find any money for worth-while programs in regional development.
Mr. Speaker, if this had been a Progressive Conservative budget, the central position of fiscal policy in any credible regional development program would have been extremely well recognized. I think there is no doubt about that, because successive leaders of this party, both in office and in opposi-

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
tion, have committed themselves to that basic principle. Unlike the government opposite, ours is a serious commitment to the comprehensive and total eradication of regional disparity across Canada. Under a Progressive Conservative budget, the have-not regions of Quebec and Atlantic Canada would today have such things as a tax rebate of 75 per cent for small businessmen investing in research and development; special tax rebates on inventory valuation for corporations investing there; long-term tax contracts for new industry, negotiated on a basis similar to the present incentive grants but which would be of much larger value to those industries-say until 150 per cent of their original investment is recovered; and a thorough examination of the priorities in capital spending of all departments in order to shift funding for labour-intensive projects to eastern areas now in the grip of a major unemployment crisis.
I believe these measures alone would have meant a significant improvement in the job and investment outlook for Quebec and for each Atlantic province. But they are by no means all we are prepared to do in order to demonstrate our total commitment to strong regional economies in eastern Canada as equal partners in the Canadian national economy. We would give immediate consideration to a range of policies designed not just to cover up the problem or give some kind of slapdash, band-aid approach as seems to be favoured as recently as this afternoon by the government House leader in his comments on unemployment, but we would get at the complex structural roots of disparity.
We would give tax incentives to companies in industrialized areas to enable them to participate in investment funds aimed at bringing new, modern, high-growth industrial systems to areas which are poorly developed, particularly in the province of Quebec which is going to need some major assistance in order to upgrade aspects of its industrial structure which is not now operating efficiently and cannot provide the jobs so badly needed. We would look at the real possibilities for co-ordinated support for critical areas in transport and energy. I know this will be dealt with later this afternoon when my colleagues from other provinces speak.
The Minister for Regional Economic Expansion sits almost alone. He seems to be caught by a problem that has engulfed this government with respect to dealing with regional disparity. It now seems to be suffering from a heavy dose of tunnel-vision. When the problem becomes one of regional development, the answer comes from one department after another, "Let Marcel do it." I have some sympathy for the minister because I think he is faced with an impossible task.
The minister has been asked by the government to address the fundamental problems of a number of provinces-particularly, today, the five eastern provinces to which we are addressing our attention-while his colleagues attend to their particular programs and projects. It may be because of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) with his nefarious "user pay" schemes, or the tariff policies of this government that can only be described as "loser pay " schemes. The minister tries to pick up the pieces after the initial and basic damage is done by his cabinet colleagues. He is in the unenviable position of

trying to bolt the stable door after the horses have gone, after the economic damage has been wreaked on at least five eastern provinces.
I hope we might be able to give the minister some assistance today when we deal with the specifics of an adequate and effective policy for the government. I hope he will be able to go to his cabinet colleagues and say, "You have to co-operate with me and listen when I tell you that particular energy policies, tariff policies, budgetary programs, or whatever, are going to widen the gap and make the chronic unemployment situation more serious in several regions of Canada." Perhaps the minister will find enough courage today to do this.
When we drafted this motion, Mr. Speaker, we wanted to be of real assistance to the minister and any other members on the government side who are willing to recognize the seriousness of the situation. Since the early 1970s at least, there has been a declining commitment by this government with respect to the alleviation of regional disparities. The government has virtually abandoned its commitment to develop strong regional economies, and there is no effective co-ordination or support expressed in the day to day performance of programs.
Unless concerted action is taken now we will still be standing here in months to come talking about an even more serious situation. If the Minister of Finance is correct in his budget, then nothing adequate or effective will be done about unemployment and the increase of some 70,000 unemployed that took place over the last year in the five eastern provinces will become even worse in the next 12 months. That is not a situation which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or any of his colleagues who are genuinely concerned about the situation want to face. That is why we urge the minister and his colleagues to take more seriously the representations being made today and promise this House that they will mend their ways and effectively deal with the serious and lamentable situation in the five eastern provinces.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 begin by saying that of course we support the basic principle enunciated in this motion. We have been talking about the tragedy of mass unemployment for at least the last 15 months in this parliament. I found it interesting that on the first opportunity, the day after Mr. Justice Berger tabled his tremendously important report on the question of whether we should proceed in the near future with a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley, the official opposition chose to discuss, instead, the question of unemployment, particularly in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.
This is a tremendously important question, Mr. Speaker. According to Statistics Canada we have the highest number of unemployed and the highest rate of unemployment that Canada has experienced since they began keeping figures. In April 1977, 914,000 people were unemployed-an increase of 145,000 over the same month last year. That figure demonstrates clearly and conclusively how wrong the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) was in his forecasts in the last two budgets, and how wrong was the proposal he put forward in those two budgets to deal with the problem.
May 10, 1977

On a seasonally adjusted basis, the 914,000 people unemployed last year constituted 8.3 per cent of the work force. For years we have been told that between 3'/2 per cent and 4 per cent unemployment would mean full employment in Canada. We knew that 4 per cent unemployment nationally would mean double that in Quebec and probably close to triple that in Atlantic Canada. When we have 8.3 per cent unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis nationally, we should not be surprised to find that in Atlantic Canada the unemployment rate is 13 per cent, on a seasonally adjusted basis, and in Quebec it is 9.8 per cent. If they did, and took the area east of Montreal, they would find that the seasonally adjusted rate, instead of being 5.8 per cent, is probably between 14 per cent and 15 per cent. Mr. Speaker, we do not accept such high levels of unemployment in 1977, any more than any parties in this House were willing to accept, at the end of World War II, a return to the massive unemployment of the prewar years.
Today we have the best educated group of young people we have ever seen in this country. It is unfortunate, therefore, that a Statistics Canada report released at the end of last week said that in this country there is a glut of university and college graduates which will continue for the next 15 years, possibly creating massive social, economic and political difficulties. The report predicts that some graduates of some programs may be forced to accept low-paying jobs which provide little responsibility, little scope for individual initiative and advancement and, hence, minimal satisfaction. I am sure almost every member of this House has heard of young constituents who, at considerable sacrifice and much hard work completed courses in community colleges or were awarded Bachelor of Arts, or similar degrees by institutions of higher education, only to find after all their hard work, no work available. Often there is no work in fields which the federal government or the provincial governments have encouraged them to enter.
I suggest our society is sick, Mr. Speaker. We use our resources in people poorly, encouraging our young to attend institutions of higher education but not providing jobs for them to fill after they graduate. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has told the young that perhaps they should move to another country if they cannot find work in this country, as if other countries which also suffer from unemployment would welcome an influx of our unemployed.
We are not talking about difficulties which will disappear next week, next month or next year. According to studies commissioned by the government, the unemployment rate next year in Newfoundland will be 16.4 per cent, and in 1978-79 it will be 17.4 per cent. In Nova Scotia, unemployment next year will be 10.8 per cent, and in 1978-79 it will be 11.3 per cent. In Quebec, unemployment next year will be 9.4 per cent, and in 1978-79 it will be 9.8 per cent. In regions of Quebec east of Montreal, unemployment will be between 12 per cent and 14 per cent, and in areas like the Gaspe in the order of 40 per cent or 50 per cent. But the government is not worried. Last December 7, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) was asked to tell the House what the government
Regional Unemployment
planned to do in order to cut back the high unemployment of last winter. Last winter's unemployment figures look pretty good when compared with current unemployment figures. According to the pamphlet "Unemployment in 1976", the minister expressed himself, in reply to a question as follows:
I suppose one can make statistics prove almost anything, but the unemployment rate for men 25 years of age and over-and I suggest with respect that these are breadwinners-dropped (from October to November) to 4.2 per cent from 4.9 per cent and the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for women in the same age group fell to 6.5 per cent from 6.9 per cent. However, the rate would not have fallen, it would have risen, had not thousands of women dropped out of the labour force.
The tens of thousands of high school and university graduates who will not find jobs this summer will find cold comfort in the minister's words. I am thinking, as well, of the many women who must work part-time or full-time in order to provide their families with a decent standard of living. Surely the minister's remarks illustrate his cynical approach to the problems of this country's ordinary people.
For a number of years the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has done its work in this country. Incidentally, I note that the minister of the department is to be the first spokesman on behalf of the government in the present debate. According to an Economic Council of Canada report released last month, the federal government, despite its efforts in the past decade to narrow regional economic disparities, has not succeeded, and those disparities remain intolerably large.
The Economic Council calls the high unemployment in some areas of the country a national disgrace. I challenge any member of the House, of any party, to disagree with that observation, especially in view of conditions in the Atlantic provinces and eastern Quebec. The Economic Council said that a person's economic well-being is sharply affected by the region in which one happens to be born or raised. Their recommendations include the following: that provincial governments in poorer areas should upgrade the educational qualifications and training of the local labour force; that provincial governments in poorer areas should undertake formal studies of low productivity levels and how best to take advantage of population shifts to urban centres in order to bolster manufacturing productivity; and that the mix of federal government spending should be changed to channel a higher proportion of it to high unemployment regions. The council concluded by saying:
The council believes that the federal government's tendency to concentrate on the role of industrial structure, physical capital, endowment in natural resources and transportation in regional development has caused other equally important factors to be neglected.
The council's views do not surprise me. Any member of parliament, regardless of party affiliation, who has had dealings with people trying to work with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will tell the same story. The federal department is insensitive to the opinions of the provinces. It will not listen to local views or consult local feelings. Federal officials assume they know all the answers. I know that in the case of my own province, Manitoba, officials were unable to reach agreement with federal officials after three

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
years had been spent in attempts to institute a jointly-funded program in northern Manitoba.
In the absence of my colleague from Nova Scotia, let me put on record some of my views concerning the terrible situation existing on Cape Breton Island. The steel industry of the area employed thousands for many years, at relatively high rates of pay. Unfortunately, in the last couple of years it has been forced to lay off several thousand workers-and this in an area without alternative employment. The lay-offs are the direct result of the recession which has affected not only Canada but all western industrialized nations. But it is also largely the result of the fact that the previous private owners of the plant neglected for many years to invest their profits in the modernization of the plant and its facilities.
The result is that the plant, which has geographic disadvantages, added to everything else, is not now able to compete with other plants in Canada or elsewhere. The people of that area are faced with the requirement that the federal government and the provincial governments together must spend a very large sum of money-several hundred million dollars at least-to bring that plant up to modern productive capacity.
Failing that, there are only two alternatives that I can see for the people of that area. Either they will be permanently unemployed, with thousands of willing and able workers on permanent welfare, or they will be forced to move thousands of miles to new jobs, leaving behind houses, schools, hospitals and all the facilities which are needed in order to have a decent life: they will be empty, not being used. Their movement would require the building of new houses, schools, hospitals and recreational facilities in the cities to which they move. Why has this not been done? It is because this government does not believe in and cannot see its way clear to the kind of longterm, permanent planning of the economy which is necessary.
There are two problems. There is the long-term problem of how Canada, a country large in area with a relatively small population, can compete on the international markets and its own markets with other countries which have very efficient industries. I refer to such countries as the United States, Germany and France. The government has given no indication to parliament or the people of Canada that it is really thinking about these problems.
We have the immediate problem of over 900,000 people officially unemployed. If we include those who have withdrawn from looking for work because there is no work, young people and women, and those who are in our community colleges and Manpower training courses, many of them there because there are no jobs to which they can go, we are not talking about 900,000 or even a million, but probably 1 'A million people. Do we believe that nothing can be done about that?
On Monday night I watched a program on the CBC. It was on economics. The commentator was John Kenneth Galbraith. He repeated an argument which some of us have made on other occasions: he said that governments all across the western world did not believe they had the ability, and could not
(Mr. Orlikow.J
find the money to put to work between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of their work force which was employed in the period 1929 to 1939. After war was declared in 1939, unemployment disappeared in Canada, the United States, Great Britain and other countries. We believe, as John Kenneth Galbraith believes, that unemployment is not necessary. We believe a government can find ways to put people back to work and do so in fairly quick fashion.
I wish to mention a few of the steps that can be taken in the very near future if only the government will make the decision. First, we need a new budget, a budget which will immediately decrease personal income taxes, particularly for those earning lower and middle incomes, in order to stimulate purchasing power and take up the current slack in the economy. We need immediately to reactivate all federal works projects, encourage the provinces and municipalities to follow suit, and at the same time lift any restraint on shared funding of such projects. We should immediately expand, in consultation with the provinces, the capital budgets for low-income and co-operative housing and land assembly. We should immediately launch an assisted repair and renovation program of homes owned by pensioners, the disabled and low-income families.
If such a simple program were begun by this government, by the end of 1977 we could cut the percentage of people unemployed by a substantial number from the present scandalous and intolerable level.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate very objectively in the debate on this opposition motion. I feel this motion is most relevant to the economic situation in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Of course, I shall restrict my remarks more specifically to the unemployment situation in the province of Quebec and the steps taken to remedy this situation. I am convinced that following our proceedings, the government will be more aware of the actual needs of our regions and of the action required to remedy the situation.
Mr. Speaker, because this country of ours is very large, I feel that Parliament must assume its responsibilities and make sure that all regions are dealt with fairly and allowed to develop normally. I cannot help being hurt and aggrieved when I read news about under-developed areas, as though only mental defectives lived there.
In each and every area, there are, however, highly intelligent people capable of developing industries and using our resources to create jobs for those Canadians who are able to work, and to ensure for the others affected by ill health or physical impairment a standard of living in keeping with Canada's potential. I had a study made for the South Shore area, as I like to call it, to have it recognized by the government and the nation as a region in its own right. It has always been called by that name. The study went back as far as the beginnings of our country. It shows how creative the people there have been, how many of them had the creativeness to
May 10, 1977

establish industries and small businesses in the logging, lumber, textile and tanning industries, in every area that can meet the peoples' needs, and all this without any government subsidies.
Going through that study, I find industries there have been disappearing one after the other, especially during the last 15 years. The people who used to work there became unemployed, and later went on welfare. My suggestion is therefore that the policies that were put forward did not work. The government would be well advised to listen to other suggestions and change course, to promote continued growth in the area so that the local manpower can be employed.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that every government has always been advised by economists. Certainly those economists did their best, and tried to recommend measures to ensure full development in the area and also to give present and future generations an opportunity to stay there with full security and freedom. Unfortunately, the recipes put forward by those distinguished economists have not been working. Therefore, something else will have to be used. It so happens that yesterday we had an opportunity in this House to discuss motion No. 22 introduced by an hon. member and suggesting that a special committee of the House be established to consider the possibility of formulating the national objectives for the next decade.
Mr. Speaker, that motion suggested that intermediary bodies submit briefs designed to enlighten the committee and enable it to make recommendations likely to help Canada put to a better use the manpower available, our human energies, so as to check the plague of unemployment and, at the same time, fight the plague of inflation so that our young people may contribute fully to the development of our country.
On the other hand, the same day one could read in some newspapers a very pessimistic report to the effect that there would be a greater number of unemployed graduates every year until around 1990. Mr. Speaker, studies have already been made in the past, serious studies. For example, I should mention the study on poverty made by a Senate committee, when senators travelled across this country to look into the situation, find out the number of really needy people, poor people, and finally suggest remedial action to the government in order to enable those helpless people to take advantage of the blessings of this country and thus contribute through their work to its development.
Now, Mr. Speaker, Parliament is aware of those recommendations but they are still being studied in cooperation with the provinces in order to find the most suitable method of implementing the Senate committee report on poverty. We also had other reports submitted by various committees, and those reports are still on the shelves. They cannot decide to act upon them in an attempt to remedy the situation and thus provide equal opportunities throughout Canada. If only the idea began to sink in that Canada extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific! I am sure then that all this useless talk about regional disparities would stop and we would understand each other much better.
Regional Unemployment
Mr. Real Caouette has often expressed that idea in this very spot. He often asked the federal government to see to it that Canada develops as a whole, while respecting the various government jurisdictions. He used to say: Strong provinces make for a strong Canada!
Mr. Speaker, I still share this view.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Matte is not!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: What I would like is that the government stop talking and start enacting appropriate legislation, to fulfil its responsibilities within its jurisdiction and ensure that the provinces have the necessary revenues to fulfil theirs in their own areas. But, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that with the present public financing it is impossible to come to an agreement.


Mr. Bechard:: Be careful, you are heading towards the Bank of Canada!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) says that I am going to suggest a greater reliance on the Bank of Canada. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, whenever someone can read my mind since it proves something, namely that when you keep making the same suggestions, you finally get them through to your colleagues, regardless of the political party to which they belong.
Mr. Speaker, the federal and provincial governments should not have to depend on a private banking system operating along the side of the public monetary system, and rely on the goodwill of the private sector for their operations and the implementation of their programs. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that the private banking system is well organized and most useful, and that it serves private interests very well. I want it to survive but I do not think it should be allowed, to control governments, Mr. Speaker. Parliament and the federal government should have authority over this system. If we were to decide-and in this respect I feel the way Mr. Real Caouette did-to set things in order in this area, much less would be heard in Canada about separatism, regional discrepancies, and B and B. This would be a good step in the right direction and it would certainly bring Canadians together, throughout the country, from coast to coast, because the central government would have the necessary financial resources to meet the developmental needs and requirements of the people in all parts of this country.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of all the efforts made over 15, 20, 30 or 40 years to improve the training of our young people, prepare their future, make them learn a trade and all kinds of things useful to the community and encourage them to get diplomas so that they can profitably serve their country while earning their living, I am sorry to note that those efforts have not been completely lost but that they have not given the expected results. I am always very sorry when I open my mail and find five, six or seven out of ten asking for help to become

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
entitled to unemployment insurance. It disgusts me and through all this I find some asking: Can you help me get a job? Everywhere I inquired 1 was asked to complete job applications. I had to state my work experience.
Mr. Speaker, how are young people supposed to answer such a question? They had no opportunity to acquire any experience. They should be given the possibility to start acquiring experience in life. Some openness of mind is needed. Mr. Speaker, everything seems aimed at making life harder for people. Here is an example. Take Canada Works, a good program. People are asked to prepare projects. In my riding I was pleased to find that quite a number of organizations and intermediary bodies have submitted projects and have tried earnestly to prepare very good job-creating projects and give an impetus to the development of our area, our province and our country. But after an analysis is made in cooperation with either the advisory committees or the member of parliament, manpower officials meet with a refusal from some provincial officials, at least in my province. This is what happens, they veto the projects. Nobody knows why, but they are against it. Every effort is made to go ahead, but those people veto the projects. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we had something specific and precise on that matter...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please!


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to refer to some of the remarks made during the debate by the three opposition spokesmen, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).
I shall begin by the latter, who has just resumed his seat. I should like to tell him that, of course, we are greatly concerned, myself especially, about the general unemployment problem in Quebec, but I am also concerned about the rest of the country. The hon. member for Bellechasse mentioned his own area on the south shore, as he calls it. In fact, it is an area with which I am somewhat familiar, though not as much as he is, of course. I am aware of some of the problems in this area, and I would feel inclined to look favourably upon some of the problems and some of the answers suggested. As a matter of fact, in the last few weeks, I had the opportunity to consider one suggestion. Of course, it is very limited, but the project materializes, we shall have done something to help a municipality in the constituency of the hon. member to develop the structures which might prove somewhat more attractive for industries that wish to settle in the area. It would be a first step, and I hope there will be many others. I should like to point out to the hon. member that even though there is no specific program for his particular constituency or area, many departmental programs affect somewhat, although not enough to his mind, the economy of his area and might help to some extent.

I would like to take up one of his comments with which I agree, but I would alter it slightly. He states for example what our young people are told unfortunately too often when they reach the labour market; employers to whom they apply for a job ask them whether they have some experience.
I agree with him that such an attitude of some employers towards young workers who have just graduated from our institutions is absolutely incomprehensible. This is why representations were made to the government on several occasions. As a backbencher I also made suggestions concerning such a behaviour among employers. The Department of Manpower and Immigration has amended its educational programs to include a training program on the job. Under this program which was launched four years ago already, 75 per cent of the salary is paid for a period extending up to a year in some cases, but generally for 26 weeks, sharing with the employer the additional cost for training a new employee and keeping another worker as a replacement, not to mention that total productivity will decline during a certain period. This program exists and is operating but in my opinion, it should be used more often. However, I think that the establishment of such a structure reflects awareness of that special problem. I hope it can be improved to solve more specifically that dilemma confronting young workers arriving on the labour market.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) specially mentioned unemployment. He dealt with the regional economic expansion program, but he dwelled on current unemployment in the country. He referred to its causes, its effects, and possible remedies. It is evident that we are all concerned by that unemployment problem. Nobody is happy to see so many idle individuals, but a program aimed at creating what is called in certain quarters full employment could imply the control of employment and work could become compulsory. If we want full employment, it would mean compelling people to work, to take jobs that they do not necessarily want. I believe this is not acceptable in a system such as ours.
Of course, the hon. member for Egmont, the official spokesman for the opposition, zeroed in on the department's weaknesses. But he obviously failed to refer to what the department has done. We do not expect to be congratulated or highly praised by the opposition, that is normal, it is not necessarily the role of the opposition, although it might be good once in a while to recognize that things have been accomplished, that efforts have been made by the government and our institutions to meet problems that we recognized as being very, very serious. He quoted a great many statistics and I will not attempt to review them. It is easy to recite statistics, especially since he included several that I had personally referred to before the standing committee of the House at the time the estimates of my department were considered.
Most of those statistics are real, alas too real, and I would have liked to be able to quote more reassuring ones, but unfortunately, things being as they are, I have had to face the facts and say things as I saw them. I hope at least my
May 10, 1977

frankness and sincerity will be recognized even though I have not found better solutions to those problems in my department. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to thank the opposition for giving me this opportunity today to speak about the department and refute certain allegations which were made here in the House and outside not only by opposition members but also by spokesmen for other economic groups in our society. I am glad precisely because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and his spokesman, the hon. member for Egmont, have systematically refused to take into account the most basic facts to judge our policies and programs, thus misleading the people to a certain extent by their critics.
It has been said, here and elsewhere, that the policies of various federal departments impede regional development, and that there is no co-ordination between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the other departments. It has also been said that the DREE operation is too centralized, that it does not know well enough the specific needs of each area, and that our industry incentive program is slow and ineffective. I appreciate this opportunity to correct the distorted facts presented by hon. members opposite, something which I have to attribute, to put it kindly, to a surprising lack of efficiency which I find quite strange among people who hope some day to lead the country. With the kind of ability they are demonstrating, I am afraid they will have to be satisfied with just keeping on wanting it for quite a while yet. I shall return to this in a little while, but for the time being, I should like to remind the House of the main policies and strategies this government and my department have developed and implemented.
Since 1972-73, the evolution of the regional development policy has followed three main themes: the need for an efficient subsidy program; the need to carry out, in every province, development strategies based on local concepts, aspirations, needs and objectives and implemented by federal and provincial civil servants stationed in each of the provinces; finally, the need for a service which can provide analytical research and liaison with other federal departments and help them develop their policies so that they can contribute to the realization of regional development objectives.
I would like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, about our previous achievements. Our subsidy program is now well established. As for the industry assistance legislation, companies have received subsidies of about $580 millions until now, which should result in the creation of 127,531 jobs in low growth areas. The rate of failure among financially assisted industries through the assistance program is lower than 10 per cent. According to some critics, it would be desirable for the procedures involved in our subsidy program to be made less stringent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, shortly after the program was first implemented, the then minister realized that it was necessary to do so, and it was done.
Those who complain about the time it takes to process the requests for help know, for instance, that since that revision of the act in 1974, processing time has been reduced by over 25 per cent? Do they know also that since the 1974 revision it was
Regional Unemployment
reduced by 33 per cent in the case of the applications dealt with exclusively by our regional offices? Finally , do they know that over 80 per cent of the applications we receive are in fact dealt with by our regional offices? So one sees the results of the improvements and flexibility built into the regulations under the act. Do those same critics, Mr. Speaker, know that when it takes over 90 days to process an application, for instance, in most cases it is due to the fact that the applicant failed to supply all the information required, and that, indeed, once we have all the information, it seldom takes us more than three weeks to be in a position to make an offer or turn down the application.
That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that the important and difficult cases do not take any more time. Of course, we are dealing here with taxpayers' money, and we know that often enough, as a result of failures and bankruptcies, the department is severely taken to task. So, obviously we must take our precautions before offering financial assistance to certain projects. We must look at the market, at the environment, Mr. Speaker, another element added in recent years, we must see whether the financial structure of the undertaking is reasonably healthy, and the sponsors of the project have the competence to manage it.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that I am not prepared, in order to set a new time record, to disregard certain basic principles of prudence required for the consideration of those files because I still believe that we must consider very seriously each application we receive.
Last October 18, the opposition asked us to ease the application of this legislation. As regards the request submitted by the Atlantic Development Council which was referred to, this was almost done completely. The opposition continued its attack totally ignoring those changes. This is obviously why the Leader of the Opposition finds it so hard to understand even the basic principles of our policy of regional development. Moreover, the Opposition wants DREE to introduce some rationality in what it calls the more than 200 federal, provincial and municipal programs of assistance to the industry.
Every project carried out under this legislation follows a major effort of coordination with the provinces involved. Furthermore, DREE, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and some other departments took an active part in many conferences dealing with subsidies, which they also helped to set up. The provinces, as well as municipalities and private organizations sometimes also took part in these meetings.
Mr. Speaker, so that our stand is perfectly clear, I want to state that our position has never been and will never be to tell the provinces what they should or should not do as far as the various programs are concerned. We shall continue to discuss with them and to seek the best solution, and we shall resort neither to coercion nor to force. The opposition wants DREE to contribute to projects already in their operational phase and to make arrangements allowing for its involvement.
They do not find it absurd to ask us in the same breath, and sometimes in the same phrase, to rationalize and coordinate

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
our programs and, at the same time, to implement already existing programs administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce through the Federal Business Development Bank at the federal level, and to set up mechanisms which are already in place at the provincial level and which are provided by their own agency,that is their own Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Mr. Speaker, the great coordinators on the opposite side who look forward to correcting the lack of co-ordination in Canada cannot even co-ordinate their minds on that matter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me turn to the second of the government's policy themes in regional development. Since 1972-73 and after the decentralization of the department which resulted in 70 per cent of our senior executive officers moving to the regions, the government moved to negotiate with each province a general development agreement. The exception would, of course, be Prince Edward Island which has a 15-year comprehensive development plan. These general agreements state in broad terms the development priorities of each province as agreed to by each provincial government. They are reviewed and discussed regularly with each province. We and the provinces know that development problems are not going to be solved overnight. The agreements are ten-year strategies. Under these agreements we enter into subsidiary agreements with each province designed to maximize the development potential of a specific sector of the provincial economy or a specific geographic area. Again, these agreements represent the priorities of the province as agreed to by each provincial government.
This GDA subagreement approach is only two years old, yet we have managed to sign some 66 subagreements across the country, committing over $1.1 billion of federal funds. The federal share of these agreements runs between 50 per cent and 90 per cent. The provinces have committed over half a billion dollars, and private industry over half a billion dollars, for a total development commitment under DREE, GDA programs of over $2 billion. This is what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) calls on the fringe of government priorities.
Our critics call for local involvement in decision-making. They call for more powers to the provinces. What better way is there to involve the provinces than to sit down with them and negotiate face to face with hard dollar commitments on a province by province basis? Do the members opposite mean to say that provincial governments do not understand the interests and priorities of their provinces? Does the Leader of the Opposition know what he means? The provinces and the people of Canada will want to know just who he thinks he is fooling.


An hon. Member:: Who do you think you are fooling?


An hon. Member:: Don't be so partisan.


Marcel Lessard: Now let me speak of co-ordination within the federal government. The hon. members opposite claim, without reference to the facts, that DREE plays no co-ordinating role. Let us look at some of the examples of how we have implemented our policy theme of research, analysis, co-ordination and liaison to which I referred earlier. A great deal of time and effort has been spent on research and analysis the primary goal of which was to assemble information which would be useful to other departments and the cabinet in pursuing a wide range of federal policies. This was done as a simple result of the stated government commitment to regional development as a policy crucial to national unity and the national interest.
Let me give a few examples where the opposition can find none. The government has launched a program of decentralization of certain government units. This is not a DREE program, but DREE has provided essential expertise to treasury board. Our analysis plays a key role in determining the suitability of towns and cities across the country for relocation. Our information has helped ensure that units and locations were well matched and that the development needs of slow growth areas were well served by the moves. This is co-ordination.
There are more examples. When we negotiate a subsidiary agreement with a province in an area where another federal government department has an interest, that other government department is usually involved from conception, through negotiation, to signing. They often sit on the management committee which implements the agreement. In Quebec alone this is true, for example, with the agreements on forestry, agriculture, minerals, industrial infrastructure, highways and PICA.
In the Newfoundland minerals agreement not only did the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources participate from conception to signing, not only did they sit on the management committee but. as well, they cost-shared the funding of the agreement with DREE and the province. That is co-ordination. I could list many subagreements that we sign with two, three, four and even five federal departments involved with the provinces and two or three departments in those provinces. Again, that is consultation, decision and co-ordination.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the 50 per cent failure.


Marcel Lessard: When you never try, my friend, you never fail. That was the record of your party when you were in power. You did not dare to try, and even so you failed miserably. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that we work in close cooperation with other departments with respect to our program of direct aid to industry. We consult the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Environment, Fisheries, Agriculture, Manpower, Immigration, as well as others before making our decisions. We also have representatives on the committees approving the grants under certain programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. For example, in anticipation of the withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces
May 10, 1977

from the Happy Valley-Goose Bay military base DREE set up a research group composed of representatives of five federal departments, the provinces as well as the local community. We obtained very substantial results, including decisions by federal departments and the signing of an auxiliary agreement with the province. While we were expecting about 150 jobs to be lost in this area it seems today that out of the 150 civilians who could have been out of a job fewer than 25 report not having found another one locally.
That is yet another example, Mr. Speaker, of the cooperation between the federal government, various departments and the provinces. Finally, there was great concern about the coordination between the objectives of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Transport, and I want to assure the House that there was and will always be a great deal of coordination, consultation, discussion between my friend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and myself, as well as between the representatives of our departments in terms of the general policy. That means transport services will be financed in all areas where they serve as a support for a springboard to development even if the total cost of investment cannot be charged to users. Such is our answer to the criticism where a general policy was set up but that general policy is actually being influenced by regional economic expansion policies, and that is why my colleague the Minister of Transport agreed to look into it.
There are other departments, Mr. Speaker, which are certainly interested in cooperating with our department. For instance 1 could name Manpower and Immigration Department through its job creation program which is oriented towards areas needing most job opportunities, and the recent amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act which once again recognized the particular situation of various regions so that they could have a different treatment in terms of unemployment insurance.
Gradually each department recognizes the necessity to coordinate government policies aimed at particular regional needs. That could not be done overnight, nor within a year, we had to gain experience. Mr. Speaker, if I had to quote only the report just published by the Economic Council of Canada, they took three years to find out what we knew well before because we had to fight the problem every day. There is a need for coordination, for many instruments to settle regional disparities. They recognized also the great complexity of that issue, that there were many intermediate agents, not only government agents but also private industries and individuals.
Evidently, if we try to co-ordinate all that, Mr. Speaker, to have everyone working towards the one and same objective, that is not an easy task, a challenge we could take up rapidly. Mr. Speaker, the opposition members should recognize that the government has committed itself to the job and has decided to live up to the challenge.
Many figures have been quoted and many things have been said. Of course, I could quote some figures myself. I have some here which I don't like at all. 1 find it interesting to look at some statistics on manpower, unemployment, income, partici-
Regional Unemployment
pation. The figures concerning the increase in the labour force are interesting. For instance, let us take a specific province, Prince Edward Island, for instance. In 1966 the labour force consisted of 34,000 people and ten years later, in 1976, this figure had reached 48,000. As far as employment is concerned there is no doubt a problem in Canada: a large number of unemployed. It is obvious from the figures released this morning. There is nothing which satisfies me in all that, even though there is a slight decrease in unemployment in some Atlantic provinces and in Quebec. We are looking and hoping for a much larger increase. There is nothing gratifying in these figures, and I am not contented, Mr. Speaker. I am not any happier than, the opposition members, and especially not more than those who are now unemployed and who are directly affected.
The other important factor to note, and it is a positive one even though to a certain extent, it is responsible for the unemployment rate, is the fact that while the participation rate in a province like Prince Edward Island was 49 per cent of the labour force in 1966, it is now 55.8 per cent. This is an indication. In Quebec, the rate was 54 per cent and it is now 58 per cent, and for Canada, the rate is now 60 per cent while it was 57 per cent in 1966. These figures are interesting since they seem to indicate an increase in the interest shown by the labour force to turn to the labour market and look for work.
The unemployment rate was released today. Everyone knows what it is. The per capita income is not satisfactory, Mr. Speaker, although the official figure has gone up. Of course, it has increased elsewhere in central Canada, that is obvious, but we must still admit that there has been some progress. In 1966, the per capita income was $1,576 and it was $4,400 in 1975. This still shows an improvement. Now, I am going to stop this enumeration to deal with a more specific subject.
I think it is clear from the figures I have just quoted that we have not succeeded in creating heaven on earth.


Mr. Paproski:: No jobs, either.


Marcel Lessard: I do believe, however, that we began to turn the tide before the current economic slowdown. I believe, as well, that the multi-year agreement we have put in place with each provincial government will promote further gains when the general western economic climate and the national economy begin to pick up. Equally, I have no doubt in my mind that without strong DREE efforts on incentive measures, on GDA programs and on policy co-ordination, the situation in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces would be much worse than it is today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Lessard: We certainly have to recognize that. Let us just look at the figures. Since 1969 DREE has spent-

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. minister that his allotted time has expired. He may continue, however, with unanimous consent. Does the minister have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Lessard: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. There was definitely a "no" from the opposition side.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke)-Urban Affairs-Granville Island, Vancouver-Future of property and purpose of expenditure; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt)-Energy-Mackenzie Valley pipeline-Possibility of request by Arctic Gas for government guarantee to raise capital; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-External Affairs-Conference on International Economic Co-operation-Request for progress report.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government's abandonment of its commitment to develop strong regional economies, and its failure to give priority to regional needs in designing national fiscal, transport, energy and trade policies, has resulted in a crisis of economic stagnation and unprecedented unemployment in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister was not given time to finish his remarks, because I was looking forward to his explaining how he and the government are going to eliminate regional disparity in three years. That seems to be the implied undertaking in the new arrangements which have been made with respect to

unemployment insurance. In other words, the government has recognized the need to make allowances for differences in regions, but only after a period of three years. I am sorry that the minister did not tell us this afternoon-I came here fully expecting he would do so-how the government proposes to eliminate regional disparities within the next three years.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister dealt with quite a number of topics today. He spotlighted many of them, but there are so many other very important things that he should lay down on the table. He tried to explain the rate of unemployment in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. For instance, these problems did exist in Quebec before the election of a separatist, secessionist government. They developed under a Liberal government in Ottawa and a Liberal government in Quebec. The policy of the Canadian government with respect to alleviating regional disparities was and still is a mixture of improvisation and inconsistency. Unemployment is rampant. Its rate has reached the 10 per cent mark. In Quebec it is causing great anxiety especially among young people. And in that province, unemployment increases skepticism and even cynicism towards federalism. That is something really tragic for our country.
[DOT] (U00)

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be entirely critical of the minister and his department this afternoon, he will be pleased to know. I have already heard him criticized by his own supporters for increasing disparity within the regions.


An hon. Member:: He should be.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps he should be. I think one of the mistakes his department has made, as I look across the country, is that it and the government, rather than concentrating on the economy of regions, has attempted to reach down into communities and make itself responsible for the rapid growth of communities. I suggest that the minister and the government are not responsible for ensuring the rapid growth of every city, community and constituency in this country, although there will certainly be instances such as Stephenville and Sydney at the present time where events will be of such urgency and so beyond the capability of the province to deal with that the federal government will wish to become involved.
I simply say that in my judgment the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should concentrate on regional economic development. In a sense, it has been trying to do too much and this is perhaps one of the reasons it has had so little success in generating dynamism in the regions of slow growth, particularly in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.
As to the Atlantic region, I do not see it as the responsibility of the minister at the present time to ensure equality of development in the near future throughout the region or in every community or every constituency. I admit that when I was premier of Nova Scotia it was recognized that some parts of the province lent themselves more readily to successful
May 10, 1977

development, in the shorter term, than others. I would expect the minister to take the same attitude.
The growth centre concept is not the sacred cow it was some years ago, but it still makes sense to follow up your best possibilities. It also makes sense to recognize that some concentration of skills and services within a section or a region is an advantage in terms of regional development. The recent study of the Economic Council of Canada entitled "Living Together", to which the minister has referred, links urban living, within limits, to economic growth and progress. I am not suggesting the encouragement of disparity within regions unnecessarily or as a goal; I simply suggest that it is perhaps the inevitable result for the time being of pursuing the best chances first. The department and the government must simply be prepared to accept the flack from people, including members of parliament, who are unhappy about certain sections of a region moving ahead more rapidly than others.
Because there have been some failures with regard to large enterprises, some people suggest we should go entirely for smaller enterprises and concentrate upon community development, rural development and the development of villages and small towns. Certainly, there is nothing finer than the development of small communities, and I am in favour of this. It strengthens the lives of people in these communities and it should not be neglected. On the other hand, we ought not to neglect large-scale development.
The report of the Economic Council of Canada to which the minister referred examined the connection and found some association between the level of technological development of a region and the rate of economic growth in that region. This is an age of technology, and generally an area needs high technology as well as natural resources if it is to prosper. There have been failures in developing high technology industries in the maritimes, and probably everybody involved has made mistakes from time to time. But there have also been-and I will associate the minister with this if he wishes-some striking successes during the years. My point is that we should learn from our mistakes and not abandon the effort to promote and develop large-scale enterprises regions such as the Atlantic provinces.
I should like to say, also, that in terms of evaluating the effort to fight regional disparity, in terms of judging the success of provincial and federal governments in the Atlantic provinces since the mid-1950s, we have to remember that the traditional economy of provinces such as Nova Scotia went through a revolution during the 1950s and 1960s-and perhaps it is continuing-where thousands and thousands of traditional ways of making a living simply disappeared. A province like Nova Scotia has had to run hard to even stand still in order to make up for the traditional employment that was disappearing in the restructuring of traditional industries which involved a substantial drop in employment and personal incomes.
While it is easy to be discouraged, particularly when there are forms of discouragement around such as high power rates and continued erosion of traditional industries in the Atlantic
Regional Unemployment
region and the province of Quebec, it is important to recognize that despite failures and disappointments new developments have taken place. People in other parts of Canada should recognize this and not regard it all as an idle effort.
I should like to say that successive federal governments have been helpful to the Atlantic provinces. We just have to consider the program of equalization by itself, for example, and what this has meant to the level of governmental services to those provinces. When I think of what could have been done and what could be done by the development of a coherent plan, I become very disappointed about the development of such a plan under the leadership of this government.
It would not be fair to say that the government of Canada established the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and then said "Get on with the job and we will forget the whole thing." It would be fair to say, however, that when the government has been challenged about its efforts in the field of regional economic disparity, it has tended to point to the existence of DREE and say, "Look at all we have done by establishing this department." Despite the minister's remarks this afternoon, it is fair to say that DREE has not developed a planned attack to encourage growth in the Atlantic area or in any region. It is fair to say, too, that the government has not developed co-ordination of its own activities. The minister said recently in committee that DREE cannot do it all by itself: He said that co-operation and co-ordination with other departments was improving, but he was not pretending it was perfect. He said it was not perfect that morning, when he spoke from his heart, but today in the House, when he spoke from a prepared speech, his story was different; he put some emphasis on the degree of co-ordination which exists.


Marcel Lessard: I am still not totally happy. I suppose I never will be.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course the minister is not happy, and except for the minister no one who has been involved with the workings of the department would pretend for a moment that the degree of co-ordination between DREE and other departments of government is anywhere close to satisfactory. We have seen several examples of departments of government working at cross-purposes with DREE.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I must be so critical about the lack of co-ordination. I am also critical of DREE for operating largely on a provincial basis within the maritime provinces. This is something the minister just boasted about. It is fine and necessary to respect the existence of provinces. But I say to the minister through you, sir, that if one is to develop an effective attack on regional economic expansion in the maritime provinces, one cannot be satisfied just to deal with the provinces. There has to be a higher degree of integration than that.

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
I would never suggest that the government ought to try to impose its own plan of development in the Atlantic provinces, but I do say that the government of Canada, with all its departments, and the Atlantic provinces should develop and implement together a plan, as opposed to this hodge-podge of provincial and sectional agreements which the department has entered into and developed. I am not against an agreement relating, say, to the Gaspe, Cote de Sud, northern New Brunswick, southwestern Nova Scotia or any other region, but I do insist that such an agreement shall relate to a regional development strategy, to a development strategy for the whole region, if it is to mean anything.
1 have long been struck by the lack of political courage of the federal government when it comes to matters of regional development. It seems afraid to offend a particular member of parliament, or is afraid of losing a seat. A proper strategy to develop the economy of the Atlantic provinces is not going to please everybody, every member of parliament or every community in those provinces; but it must be done. The strategy must be developed. The program be developed in co-operation with the provinces. It must be done, and it can be sold. If the minister wants to know about a technique, I suggest he should look into the technique of voluntary economic planning.
I am not asking him to use the particular plan which was evolved. By encouraging representatives of industrial sectors to work with officials it proved possible in Nova Scotia ten years ago to get agreement on a plan. That plan would never have been accepted if the province of Nova Scotia had tried on its own to impose it. If the minister or his colleagues in government are too timid to work toward a regional plan for the Altantic provinces, I suggest the technique I just mentioned might lead to a sharing of the risks and make such a course more acceptable. Surely the government can do something like that.
Sir, after eight years of existence DREE has not yet attacked the problems of the Atlantic region. It is not yet attacking the problems holding back the entire region. I recognize that each province is different, that each province has different opportunities; but there are factors holding back the entire region. After eight years the department and the minister have not identified these factors. Or, if the minister has identified them, he has failed to attack them.
My time this afternoon is limited. I am pleased that the Economic Council of Canada has once again interested itself in regional economic disparities. I am pleased by the fundamental optimism of the Economic Council of Canada report to which the minister referred. It is optimistic that we can succeed. I find some interesting suggestions in it. For instance, it says that we should use to better advantage the tools we have been using, and try new tools which are available but which we have not used.
It is interesting to note the council suggested that intraregional trade, or trade within the Atlantic region generally, is relatively more important than interregional trade. It is interesting to see the explanation for the jump in unemployment which always takes place in the Atlantic provinces in the

course of a recession, and to compare that jump with unemployment in other provinces. The council explains that this is owing to greater shrinkage in demand in the Atlantic provinces than takes place in other provinces or regions of Canada. If this is so, this fact can have a tremendous cumulative effect in retarding the development of the Atlantic provinces.
I asked the minister in committee what he thought of this idea and what he thought of the council's suggestion that the federal government and the provinces should establish a fiscal stabilization program to overcome the shrinkage in demand in the region which accompanies every national recession. I say this because the theory of the Economic Council of Canada corresponds to the gut feeling of maritimers that this has been happening with drastic consequences to the economy of the region. Mr. Speaker, DREE cannot implement such a concept on its own. I therefore ask, what is the minister's attitude? The council's suggestion is far different from the government's suggestion concerning tax benefits within the region. The council's suggestion is related to eliminating the additional depressing effects of national recessions on economic growth in the Atlantic provinces. The concept of the council is different from that of the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Regional Expansion (Mr. Lessard). What are the government's views on the council's suggestion?
There is not any one solution to the problems of the Atlantic provinces, or the economic problems of Quebec. We cannot be content with the kinds of improvised suggestions and policies which have come forward so far from DREE. It is good to see the Economic Council of Canada taking a hard look at what has been happening. As the minister said, the problem is a difficult one. I agree that it is difficult. But no country has found the solution to such problems an easy matter. The Economic Council is not pessimistic. We have made some progress and we have seen some development-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired. It has been suggested that since 12 more speakers wish to speak, we should have no extension of time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I cannot help but compare today's motion to a spring shower. It was rather sudden, the initial downpour was heavy, if not exaggerated, and conducive to erosion.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: And good for the country at the same time.


Eymard G. Corbin: There is something basically unfair in the way our rules allow opposition parties to bring sudden motions before the House, motions on which there should be substantial and in-depth discussion. If we finally get down seriously to reforming the rules governing this institution, the area of notice of supply proceedings coming under Standing Order
May 10, 1977

58(4)(a) should, in my opinion, be modified so as to allow backbenchers in particular more lead time for participating in debate in a meaningful way and preparing researched speeches.
With the heavy work load already on our shoulders in committees and our two offices, not to mention all sorts of other meetings, the present situation is not at all in our favour. Of course, there is an advantage here to the opposition which I am prepared to recognize in an adversary situation. That may be as it should be. It is a gain for them, but it is a loss for the total House if all backbenchers are not given sufficient advance notice.
On the other side of the coin, with today's motion there is cancellation of a scheduled meeting on DREE estimates. We were to examine the Ontario expenditures and programs of the department. However, that motion had to be set back one week because the minister was to be our principal witness. The motion, therefore, came rather suddenly for the committee and its members. We would have appreciated some advance notice. Speaking as a member of this House and not as the chairman of the regional development committee, I find it regrettable that the committee was not allowed to complete its examination of the estimates as well as its study of the Economic Council of Canada report on regional disparities. In that sense, I feel that today's proceedings are untimely and premature, in addition to being staged on short notice.
However, I am prepared to deal with the motion. One thing in the wording that I find annoying is the reference to "the government's abandonment of its commitment to develop strong regional economies". The motion would have made some sense in terms of equilibrium and fairness if it had addressed itself to the role of all levels of government, not just the federal government, in their combined and essentially co-operative efforts to combat perennial regional disparities.
I have on my desk and in my mind, as I am sure do other members, a number of examples which will serve to demonstrate that the provincial administrations were found, and are still found, wanting in their co-operative efforts with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.

First, Mr. Speaker, I cannot keep from noticing with all possible objectivity and charity that some provinces are far from fully playing their role in this joint effort against inequalities to which the federal government has resolutely addressed itself and on which the present minister is also actively working. I cannot accept that the central government should be blamed for everything, if blame is justified.
There are yet too many partisan considerations in the establishment of provincial policies and in the wording of development agreements. The provinces do not always show the goodwill and the determination which are indeed necessary for the implementation of concerted action schemes. While there are remarkably able people in many provincial jurisdictions, it is a fact-and the provinces should admit it in all
Regional Unemployment
humility-that they do not yet have at their disposal all the experts needed for identifying their priorities, for recommending appropriate solutions and quite often for carrying out programs.
It is not my intention to minimize everything that has been accomplished or attempted up to now by the provinces, by themselves or in co-operation with the federal authorities. There have been remarkable successes, but also, dismal failures; there have also been projects which did not even get started because, in my opinion, the required expertise, technology, and staff did not exist.
I merely say that in the area of regional development, the provinces, and unfortunately, most of the time the have-not provinces, do not yet have at their disposal the required staff, technology and administrative support. The mover of the motion, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), said earlier in the debate that the federal government must show leadership in the area of regional development. I will tell him very simply, for maybe the minister was too humble to say it, that this is what we have been doing since 1968, Mr. Speaker. This government has shown leadership since 1968; it has fully fulfilled, in my opinion, election promises after election promises. Perhaps it did not know how to come up to all our expectations, or it has not been able to, but it has definitely shown leadership. However, the hon. member for Egmont must recognize, as the Minister told him earlier, that in our federal system, this leadership cannot be and should not be imposed unilaterally on the provinces-at the risk of hearing those very same opposition members and the provincial premiers clamouring that we are trampling on the provinces, that we are making a farce of their powers, that we fail to respect their jurisdictions.
The crux of the problem and of the challenge which confront all governments is to find a compromise and seek a magic formula which would satisfy everybody in respect of jurisdictions. I am convinced that the people from the Atlantic provinces are sick and tired of listening to the whining of the opposition parties and editorialists, all snug and cozy in their offices, suggesting that DREE has fallen short of its objectives. In fact, I believe that the good and honest public will readily admit now that DREE effectively contributed in a very positive way to the development of the economic potential of the Atlantic provinces. No miracle has been accomplished yet by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion nor have the incumbent Minister and any of his predecessors, for that matter, yet been canonized.


Some hon. Members:: It is coming, though.


Eymard G. Corbin: But I would simply like to say to the Minister not to get discouraged, not to despair, as I believe he is going in the right direction. Anyway, canonization is never achieved during one's lifetime. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we expect a greater participation from DREE. But we are not simplistic enough or candid enough to believe that DREE can succeed in its mission, in spite of the provinces.

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
The exercise in which the two levels of government have engaged, particularly since the conclusion of general development agreements in almost every province, should not be limited to a calculation in dollars and cents per capita. The outlook which inspired the signature of the agreements requires much more flexibility and humanism from the parties involved.
I, for one, am satisfied with the fact that the present minister is well aware of the importance of this openness of mind, of the search for a compromise, and I hope his provincial colleagues will follow his example. For instance, why does the government of New Brunswick still refuse to recognize the necessity of an overall plan, a comprehensive attack, in a small province such as New Brunswick which has some 660,000 inhabitants?
I was listening a moment ago to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), former leader of the official opposition, who said it was sometimes necessary, if not always, to adopt a piecemeal approach in regional development, that is to say, to deal first with large urban centres so that the effects of advantages that can be obtained there will gradually be felt in rural areas. That is not what happened in New Brunswick,Mr. Speaker. Under the guise of a planning policy of urban centres growth poles, an exodus from rural areas in New Brunswick took place. The population growth in the area I represent has been almost nil since the 1971 census. Yet, the people of my region want to work and they go wherever they have opportunities, in New Brunswick, in Quebec, in Ontario and often in the United States.
I repeat what I just said: I suggest that in a province such as New Brunswick, unless we have a comprehensive plan, an overall approach covering the entire province, we will not be able to fight efficiently against regional disparities in these provinces.
I agree that the hon. member for Halifax is probably right in saying that our overall strategy should not be restricted to the provinces and that we must concentrate our efforts on a regional basis. I am of the opinion that the Council of Mari-times Premiers, insofar as Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are concerned, is indeed the most appropriate instrument with which to formulate this regional strategy. Why has the New Brunswick government for almost seven years concentrated most of its investments in the south of the province while DREE, under its industrial incentives program, its FRED program, was making an outstanding effort to meet all the demands, especially in the north.
Up to now the various development agreements have been quite discriminatory against several areas in New Brunswick, and that is not by sheer accident, precisely where the highest unemployment rates are to be found. How come people are now saying in New Brunswick that there is a provincial government for the south and a federal government for the north? In my opinion, it is the symptom of a major weakness in the development policies of the provincial government. 1 am aware that the Minister of Economic Regional Expansion has

been making worthy efforts lately, if not during the past months, to try and correct this discrepancy and urge the provincial government to see to it that all areas in the province benefit from federal assistance. It will soon be nine years since I came here, Mr. Speaker, and all that time I have supported the government which often heeds my criticism that I mean to be constructive. I am proud to support my government and to have been associated with men like Jean Marchand and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). The present minister spent two days in my region last fall to hear the municipalities, the regional development commissions and leaders in general. All those people unanimously agree that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) has his heart in the right place and understands very well regional aspirations.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say once again that 1 regret we had so little time, such short notice, to prepare adequately for the debate on today's motion which hit us somewhat unexpectedly. I find this regrettable, because we have or would have had so many things to contribute to this debate, we would have so many positive recommendations to make, but because of our other duties elsewhere in these premises, we find it impossible to accomplish as much as we would like to. In conclusion, I want personally to congratulate once again the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to urge him forward and encourage him to always seek with his provincial counterparts those compromises which are so hard to arrive at.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to take part in this allotted day debate on an issue of concern to all members of the House. According to the previous speaker, there is no doubt that the government is quite satisfied with its efforts and its attitude-


Some hon. Member:: True!


Roch La Salle: Surely some members opposite will say it is true. The minister was more honest. He said that he was not satisfied with the situation. I think that we will understand each other. Is there need to recall the statements made by government representatives at the time when that department was established and was supposed, mind you, to settle practically all economic problems at the regional level. Some efforts were undoubtedly made. The results prompt us today as members of the opposition to remind the government of the problems still facing the Canadian people.
And I recently heard and carefully listened to the statements made by the minister in Montreal or elsewhere which contained the best of intentions. Every opposition member agrees with those intentions, but asks that action be taken. Everyone will readily say that it is perhaps too late to talk about those intentions and the funds supposedly available to remedy the situation.
I come from a province that the minister knows well and I wish him of course every success in his new responsibilities, but I think that Quebecers could benefit from any measure the minister might take to improve the critical situation now
May 10, 1977

prevailing in the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) talked about the Maritimes and particularly about Quebec, and the motion refers to the regions hardest hit by unemployment, and I think nobody would blame me for reminding the House that the province of Quebec is much concerned about its unemployment rate.


Mr. Dupras:: Give us examples!


Roch La Salle: And the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) speaks about a bad government in Quebec as if the situation there were recent. Mr. Speaker, we already had problems two, three or four years ago. And the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) pointed out the indisputable fact that under Liberal governments in Ottawa and Quebec there were already tremendous difficulties. The difficulties we are now experiencing could easily be anticipated. It was not for want of warnings. I think the hon. member for Halifax has given this government excellent advice for several years. He has been made the laughing stock, he has been called ...


Albert Béchard: And you dropped him.


Roch La Salle: ... a prophet of doom, and the government rejected his suggestions. The hon. member for Halifax had made his intentions clear following the 1974 elections. Besides, the government gave partial recognition to the value of his suggestion in adopting a very well known measure, but if it had been implemented 100 per cent, we would not have the problems the Anti-Inflation Board has had and still has. So this might be the problem now. Since the 15th of November, we have heard many comments of course. Reasonable people have told us of the difficult and delicate situation prevailing in Quebec. Quebecers have responded to repeated frustrations due to the action of the present government. Is it necessary to recall, Mr. Speaker, the representations and the recommendations which were made by the then Liberal ministers in Quebec. I remember very well men such as Mr. L'Allier, Mr. Saint-Pierre, Mr. Castonguay, Mr. Hardy and Mr. Choquette. I remember they made recommendations and demands concerning various responsibilities, particularly in the economic field, advocating additional expenditures. These men received a great many negative answers, and we were surprised to see on election night that Quebec had lost confidence. We are surprised, and there is the danger; we continue to ridicule the situation or to pretend that we are going to deny available services to this province through day-to-day provocation.


Maurice Dupras: This is not correct!


Roch La Salle: I hear that this is not correct.


Maurice Dupras: Give examples.


Roch La Salle: Examples? Well, we are concerned about the visit of Quebec minister Claude Morin to Paris. We are concerned about his visit. However, how many Quebecers have been in Paris? But we are concerned about this. Given the
Regional Unemployment
circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it is the government approach made up of confrontations which often lead to arrogance. We refused to establish a genuine dialogue with the provinces. We treated them as if they were opponents instead of allies.


Some hon. Members:: Not true!


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked to hear my hon. friends opposite say that it is not true. The federal government should stick to the following policy at the present time: we want to be respectful in order to be respected. I think we have a unique opportunity to do it now and given the climate and concerns which are being expressed in Quebec, the federal government has the immediate obligation to prove that restoration of economic progress is possible within the framework of the constitution but it ought not to adopt a negative attitude. We cannot turn our backs on the government of Quebec at the present time. We cannot be sulky with it, and in the interest of Quebecers, Mr. Speaker, time has come now to prove that it is not only possible to help Quebec but also all provinces.


Maurice Dupras: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Roch La Salle: The hon. member for Labelle who almost never takes the floor!


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Joliette to give material evidence on the way the federal government impedes or delays the economic progress of the province of Quebec. If he is fair and if he knows what he is talking about, he is going to give us concrete examples; otherwise he should refrain from talking.


An hon. Member:: He has not got any.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I think we are getting into the realm of debate. That is not a point of order.


Roch La Salle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would invite my colleagues from Quebec to speak out. I am not talking about the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. He told the House what he intends to do and I think he means well, I simply say that the time has come to do something. I hear the hon. member for Labelle who makes me lose 30 seconds of my speech. Too many members from Quebec were absent, kept silent about the recommendations made by the province of Quebec well before November 15, Mr. Speaker. That representation of 60 members, taking Quebec for granted, preferred leaving their own government give as many negative answers to Mr. Bourassa's government, we remember that, not only today's government, but Mr. Bourassa's government.


Maurice Dupras: Give examples.


Roch La Salle: And I say that with respect to communications, immigration, and so on, the Liberals were pitiful con-

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
cerning the recommendations made by the government of Quebec. One wonders after why Quebecers are so concerned today and so frustrated about the current system. It is not the system or federalism as it is which is bad, Mr. Speaker, but the way it is applied. It was not applied properly.
Someone has suggested earlier to let the federal government establish priorities at the provincial level. I am against that because the provinces have not really contributed enough to important decisions. The minister underlined the importance of better cooperation between various departments and it is certainly a necessity but the cooperation of provinces is also needed to establish a dialogue between them and set priorities. Then, the federal government will be a complement to the desires and aspirations of provinces. I do not speak only for Quebec, actually-


An hon. Member:: Like a federal-provincial conference!


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Labelle has something to say later, he will certainly get the floor. But as soon as they are criticized for having maintained a silence which is awkward and disappointing for Quebecers, they take the floor. Of course, they do not like it.
But the CBC, anyone, will be made responsible for the present situation when this government has been in power for 12 years. Twelve years ago, this government was supposed to deal with unemployment. There were 168,000 unemployed in 1968 and there are one million now but, nevertheless, some people dare say that Quebecers are privileged and not so unfortunate. No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we could commend this government for its performance until now.
I could mention the north shore, northern Quebec where people are living far from large centres and penalized because of their geographic situation. I do not think that this government can refuse to consider giving compensation to these areas because of their geographic situation. Heating and transportation costs are higher, industries are less and less interested to go there because competition is more difficult. As members of parliament we have asked the government to consider the difficulties of the people living in remote centres and we are aware of their problems. I think that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion could bring about some solutions. An unemployment rate of 20 per cent has been mentioned for Temiscamingue, and in Gaspesia it stands at 25 per cent, the highest unemployment rate in Canada.
My area will reach the 20 per cent mark the way things are developing. It is important in my view that we reconsider this now, and DREE has the tool to do it, namely the setting up of designated areas. Recently, in Montreal, the minister referred to the possibility of investing millions of dollars in the metropolitan area. He recognized the problems now faced by Montrealers and the increasing unemployment rate.
This is important in my view, so I urge that the Montreal region be declared as soon as possible a designated area. Mr. Speaker, there is something I have never been able to under-

stand. I was put in the Montreal-Mirabel corridor, and I call that taking quite a roundabout way. My constituency like many others is now in the throes of serious difficulties. We must urge the government to apply very special, short-term remedial measures in areas where the unemployment rate is the highest. Of course, we will be criticized for asking this at this point. But, in my view, we are committed to do so. We are also committed to remind the government that people are suffering, not only in the province of Quebec but throughout Canada. My colleagues have mentioned this before, and others will again. So, as far as my area is concerned, I will certainly take this opportunity to ask the minister to consider reviewing the issue of currently designated areas as related to those that are now experiencing worse difficulties. Reference was made to the Montreal area. My area is also having difficulties. There are districts where the unemployment rate is reaching disastrous levels. We certainly are aware of that.
DREE's main objective was to take care of regional disparities. In all fairness, I do not believe this government deserves any commendation for the result it has achieved. Of course, some will say that the government has spared no efforts, that it has invested money, that it has worked hard, that it has made studies. This is not enough, and I say definitely not enough, and when people talk about our million unemployed workers, especially in Quebec, there is concern about the close-down of a number of plants and about the fact that the government has failed to study or plan to save Canadian industries.


Mr.   Bfechard@: Others will be closed!


Roch La Salle: The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine talks about the closing of yet other plants. This does not worry him, but it does worry me, Mr. Speaker, to see that plants are now closing down in Quebec. A decent and respectful government has no right to hesitate one moment to offer something to the Quebec government, and to all of the provinces. Since I am speaking about Quebec, I believe that this government should immediately offer concrete proposals to the Quebec government. This government should dare the Quebec government to refuse! Then the people of Quebec will be in a position to pass a judgment on their government.


Albert Béchard: The industries do not want to stay in Quebec!


Roch La Salle: I hope that this government will immediately offer the provinces-and especially Quebec in view of the present dangerous situation-ideas, legislation and possible investments, and that it will concentrate its efforts not only on keeping open the plants that we now have, but also on saving the industrial community in Quebec and Canada and on taking steps to create additional jobs. Of course, there is Canada Works and Young Canada Works. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been voted for these programs, but this is no insurance for the future, Mr. Speaker. These measures are merely remedial in character and we are forced by the circumstances to accept them. I am happy that some of those projects are being funded in my constituency, but it is not an insurance for the future, not only of Quebec, but also of Canada. I
May 10, 1977


Roch La Salle: No. After six o'clock.


Albert Béchard: He said after six o'clock because then he will not be able to answer it.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, today the hon. member has a golden opportunity of rising and speaking on behalf of his fellow-citizens, a golden opportunity of telling the House that he and his electors are quite happy about the million unemployed in the country. That is not true! No one in the province of Quebec is happy. The minister had the courage to say so, but not the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I object to the hon. member for Joliette making such cheeky and stupid remarks about me and my electors who are every bit as worthy of respect as his. A while ago, I wanted to ask him whether he feels the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is to blame for-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Does the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) accept a question?


Some hon. Members:: It is fear!


Roch La Salle: I have no time to waste trying to reply to the insignificant questions of the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine.
Regional Unemployment


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to inform the hon. member for Joliette that his time has expired.


Mr. McCleave:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the time of the hon. member who had the floor was taken up by interruptions. He lost about two minutes because of interventions by hon. members opposite, and I think he should have the benefit of those two minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I must inform the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) that this was taken into consideration by the Chair.


Claude Tessier: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate, the more so because it will afford me the opportunity to calm down the tempers, something which I feel is necessary at this time. Just the same, I should like to suggest to my friend the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that he will probably be satisfied, for I intend to admit later and do admit now that problems exist and that it is really together that we are going to solve them.
Then again, and I mean this as a very friendly suggestion, if the government has a part to play in this, a part which is in constant evolution, so has the opposition. It has to know what and how to ask and, in the near future, when it must stop asking.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Claude Tessier: Mr. Speaker, just before dinner, I merely had the time to calm down the House, and I would now like to deal with the subject immediately.
As a matter of fact, this is an opportunity for me to speak on behalf of non-industrialized Quebec, and its immense rural regions. However, I must admit that as a government member, I am faced with a dilemma. I am faced with a situation that is not good, to say the least, and, on the other hand, with inadequate economic structures, which are common to all non-industrialized areas, with a sparse, aging population, and which are very often deserted by young people, because of the lack of job opportunities, and where industries disappear one after the other, and are very often not replaced. This is the dilemma a government backbencher finds himself in, namely to recognize certain facts and accept that problems do exist. But on the other hand we have to choose the hard course of trying to build in an economic climate where almost everything seems impossible because those who want something
5486

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
expect nothing short of miracles while lying, threatening and destroying.
Mr. Speaker, it has to be agreed that it is easy to criticize, and that is the course the opposition seems to follow; this week's motion is just a rehash of the one we heard last week- long theoritical statements that would mean anything but finally mean nothing. I would like to illustrate with a specific example the process which leads to unemployment in regions like mine. First here is the text of a telegram I just received announcing the closing of a plant in my riding, and I quote:
This is to inform you of the decision made by Domtar Packaging Limited to end all its operations and close its kraft paper and board plant in East Angus, Quebec. This move will involve the lay-off of about 570 employees mostly represented by two unions affiliated with the CNTU. This difficult decision is inevitable for us as a result of the problems set by the current economic factors and the long term out-look for this plant.
Besides, here is the text of the letter that the general director sent to each of his employees, and 1 quote:
We are sorry to inform you of the decision of Domtar Packaging Ltd. to discontinue all its operations and close down its kraft paper and board plant in East Angus. The Minister of Labour and Manpower and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce were informed of our decision. We know that you are aware of the economic problems which have been facing the company over the years. We fully understand the impact this decision will have on yourselves and families. The reasons for this important decision are as follows: 1. In the late sixties and early seventies, a major capital investment program was considered for the East Angus plant; the money was supposed to be used to replace the recovery boiler, reduce pollution, increase the production potential and improve productivity. This modernization program has never been implemented because it was not fully justified, at that time in view of other priorities and of the risks inherent to the kraft paper markets. Finally, the quick increase in capital costs in the last few years, due to inflation, made it impossible to reconsider such an investment program. 2-We had to reduce the operation rate of the recovery boiler in August 1976 for safety reasons. There followed a drop in the production capacity of the kraft plant from 70,000 to 50,000 tons which, combined with the present cost of wood, energy and manpower, made the plant economically not viable. 3-The funds which are necessary to increase production and bring productivity to a satisfactory level, to replace machinery and comply with the new pollution standards, cannot be generated by the operation of the East Angus plant. We could not have an acceptable return on investment, even if the funds were coming from external sources. In spite of the present labour situation, the company is prepared to give its employees a layoff notice as long in advance as possible. You are hereby notified that the plant will ceast its operations and that your employment with the company will be terminated at midnight on September 30, 1977 at the latest.
This is a story which happened repeatedly in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, in the cases of fepingles Megantic Manufacturing, Kilgour Limited, George Sheard Ltd. and which combined with other layoffs to bring the unemployment level to over 20 per cent.
If we refer to the particular situation in the riding of Compton, where the labour force is made of about 22,000 workers, if we consider that in the town of East Angus alone, the third largest town in my constituency, unemployment now affects about 1,350 people, we get to the fantastic rate of unemployment of 36 per cent, if we include the forthcoming closure of Domtar Limited.
I must say that East Angus, the third largest town in my riding, was enjoying the best average wages among the 66 municipalities in my constituency. The economic factors con-

sidered are as follows: productivity, high wages and, more recently, language problems, labour relations issues, security and pollution problems.
The solution we should apply under the circumstances would cost about $30 million to update the East Angus plant. The question we must ask and accept that it be asked is the following: Why should Domtar invest in East Angus? Why should Domtar accept to invest in Quebec? Why should Domtar accept to invest in Canada or elsewhere? Who would venture an answer? Until we have proof to the contrary, the answer belongs to the one who will have to pay, which means that indeed the decision to close might very well stand.
Concerning long term opportunities, profitability, security and labour relations, can we look forward to new developments? Finally, Mr. Speaker, this motion is a good opportunity to ask the question: to what extent is the federal government responsible for that closing? Frankly, I would say that the government is in no way responsible, but if we say that the plant should stay open, that to be economical production costs should go down by 25 per cent, then who would be responsible for the cost of such an industry? Could we require the employees to accept wage reductions? If so, who would dare ask such a question? If so again, why should the employees alone have to pay? Why should some industry workers have to pay for the present economic situation?
The one hard fact is that we will have to use unemployment insurance immediately and perhaps even social welfare in the long run. How much would the federal government be prepared to pay to prevent such a situation? The opposition has been trying today to give us a lesson, but just what is it prepared to do to support the government to protect about 5 per cent of the manpower in a riding such as Compton?
That is a sad question and unfortunately the answer has been the same in past years-shut down after shut down. Let us consider Quebec generally. Certainly the government is criticized because it is supposedly responsible for everything, or so most people think.
So, on November 15, as he was regarded as the only one responsible for everything that went wrong in Quebec, Mr. Bourassa was voted out of office, and today what has become of it? We hear the same old story over again every day that we are fed up with multinationals and with employers who want to be their own boss and that such employers who refuse to pay high wages are not good citizens. In summary, we want to enjoy every benefit from capitalism and socialism without having to pay for it and often without even having to make a choice. Therefore, who is going to create employment? Is it the government or private enterprise?
It is about time we start being consistent and realistic. If there is such a thing as the right to work, it must certainly be extended wherever possible. Can we not be positive? If so, let us stop blaming workers, businessmen, manufacturers or multinationals. Our prime concern should be the respect for the worker and for the one who provides work. Only on those conditions is the right to work possible. But before that, we
May 10, 1977

have to look back and see what are the responsibilities of each of us.
The Conservative motion could be useful as the government recognizes also the necessity to level off regional disparities. What was true yesterday still holds true today and, I dare say, will still be true tomorrow. It only takes a little honesty and realism to recognize this fact. Why then try to pretend? It is precisely what contributes to destroy the credibility of politicians who always find the solution when they are in the opposition but who would be quite powerless to act if they were in office.
Mr. Speaker, today's motion may once again be just so much wasted time, with all the stories people would like us to believe. But for us, we want to make history for the benefit of Canadians. As for me I want to commend the minister and the government for what they have accomplished. I believe that if the hon. member from Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) had taken the trouble to read the DREE annual report for 1975-76, he would have realized all the efficient work done by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. He could have read over the document on development context published by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. He could also have read various brochures on the development perspectives for each region of Canada, again from DREE. He would have found that these are not only empty words and vague hopes but concrete gestures to meet the needs of Canadians from whichever region they are.
Of course I agree with the hon. member that when one talks of a development strategy it happens too often that one cannot reach our remote areas where there is precisely the greatest need to show imagination and find the know-how to make our laws apply. It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that in my region, as it is the case for that matter in the whole of rural Quebec, people tend too often to think they are at the end of the world, that they never see anything from the government which always appears too remote. This is when we fall back on local arguments which are neither dynamic nor effective with reference to Canadian and regional economies.
I can understand the opposition's viewpoint but with some reflection and sufficient courage, the discussion can be carried on the national level. The government is not responsible for the present crisis and the solutions should rather come from the various government levels. Thus, the federal government must and does assume an effective leadership in regional development. Moreover this is the very essence of Confederation. The federal government is ready to do so, it is ready to provide that leadership without forcing its way otherwise we would already have heard complaints about its arrogance and its centralizing power.
Provincial governments also have a role to play, and even the one in Quebec must play that role to the benefit of Quebecers, because they have as much right to the benefits of Confederation as all other Canadians. Let the Quebec government be the true and good government they are committed to be, let them not prevent the Trudeau government from also being true and good government for Quebecers. But the way
Regional Unemployment
things are going, the Trudeau government will have to be not only the good government they are, but a tremendous one supported by a no less tremendous opposition, because they will have their minds up to whatever is needed to keep Quebec within Canada. I still believe this is possible, because it is what a majority of Quebecers wish for, with essential provisos that are nonetheless fair and reasonable. Mr. Speaker, all of us here in this House, wherever we may sit, we have an efficient role to play in meeting our constituents' needs.
Below provincial governments, there are municipal governments who are also responsible for development, and that development must indeed fit in with the wishes and possibilities of the people. Finally, citizens themselves are involved in development, to various degrees and in various capacities. In conclusion, I would suggest that the government is prepared to share its responsibilities. We know the job is far from completed, but together we hope to succeed in working for the good of all Canadians wherever they are, including those in Quebec and the Maritime provinces.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that the present government can do that would be for the greater good of the country and that is to resign office tomorrow and allow a government to come in that would make an attempt to overcome the conditions discussed in the resolution now before the House. The policies of the government have led to the conditions set out in the final words of the motion which read:
... has resulted in a crisis of economic stagnation and unprecedented unemployment in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
Who should take the credit or the blame for that? The government that has been in office for the last 14 years, since 1963, has to take the credit or the blame for the present economic conditions in Canada. It is the same government that took credit when things appeared to be going well that has to take responsibility when we are in a period of abysmal and unprecedented unemployment in eastern Canada and the Atlantic provinces-this government, this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his predecessor, who have been in office for the last 14 years. The best thing they can do to show they still have a feeling for what is good for the country, is to get out. The country will be ruined if they stay for another year before an election.
Is there a crisis of economic stagnation and unemployment in eastern Canada? Let me speak for a moment of Newfoundland. The latest figures available show that from April 10 to 15 the actual work force in Newfoundland was 180,000 people, 145,000 of whom are employed and 35,000 of whom were unemployed. The actual rate of unemployment in Newfoundland for that week was 19.2 per cent. Any government that felt any pangs of conscience at all would resign from office in the face of those figures. Unemployment stands at 19.2 per cent, when a Liberal government has been in office for the last 14
5488

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
years, Mr. Speaker,(doing such wonderful things for the people of Canada.
Get out! Get out before it is too late. Get out while people are still prepared not to hang you on the way out.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member keeps his ears open he will hear. In addition to the unemployment figures it is shown that the able-bodied on relief in Newfoundland at the end of March numbered 4,100 men and women. These people no longer qualify for unemployment insurance so we had to add them to that figure. Today I am told there are 63,120 people drawing unemployment insurance benefits. I have not had time to find out why so many should be drawing benefits when there are 35,000 unemployed. There must be some explanation of that.
It is a desperate situation, Mr. Speaker. Newfoundland is a province where 20 per cent-that is a conservative figure-of the labour force is unable to work because they cannot get jobs. Yet this government has the gall to stay in office. It should resign immediately.
The hon. member who just resumed his seat led us to believe we should congratulate the government. Congratulate them for what, Mr. Speaker? For 19.2 per cent unemployment? For the 4,100 able-bodied on relief?


An hon. Member:: What did you do when you were a minister?


John Carnell Crosbie: Let us in and we will show you. Are we to thank the government and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for reducing expenditures in Newfoundland despite the economic situation? The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) himself said in committee several days ago, as reported in issue No. 12 of the committee's proceedings, that in 1974-75 his department spent $68.3 million in Newfoundland. In 1975-76 the department spent $68.2 million. In 1976-77, last year, when the economy of the province was going down and unemployment was high, how much did DREE spend in Newfoundland? The minister says he expects the final figure to be close to $60 million. Why did DREE spend $8 million less in Newfoundland last year, when the economy was worse, than it did the year before? And the minister said that this year, with 20 per cent unemployment in the province and 4,100 able-bodied on relief, he hopes to spend $60 million in the province. Mr. Speaker, that spending will not even keep pace with our inflation rate.
If the minister wanted to keep up the level of spending of three years ago, he would have to spend more than $80 million this year in the province. Are we to get down on our hands and knees and thank members of the Canadian government for what they are doing to overcome this situation? Not on your life. We regard them with absolute contempt for the way they have handled the economy of Canada in the last five years. In

Newfoundland we cannot wait for the chance to give them the works in the next election.
What can one say about the economy of Newfoundland? What has happened to our economy in the last few years?


An hon. Member:: You left it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak on behalf of the people of Newfoundland who sent me here last October 18.


An hon. Member:: Yes, you left Newfoundland.


John Carnell Crosbie: Hon. gentlemen opposite are very sensitive. They are pretty touchy. What has happened under this magnificent Liberal government? What has this government done in the last few years to our Newfoundland economy? In 1975 the gross provincial product went up 0.8 per cent. We had less than 1 per cent growth in 1975 under the great Trudeau government.


An hon. Member:: But the Tory government of Newfoundland has some responsibility.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) should resign from this government. But he is committed to it now. Yes, our economy grew 0.8 per cent. In the next year, 1976, our gross provincial product went up by the magnificent total of 1.2 per cent under this wonderful Liberal government. The forecast for this year is that it may go up in real terms by 2 per cent. That is the record of the great Liberal government. That is how it is swelling the economy in Newfoundland and eastern Canada.
And what has this government done about the inflation rate? What is the record of this magnificent government, the hem of whose pants we are supposed to kiss every day or else be accused of bad taste in the House of Commons? What has it done about inflation? While we are being crucified with unemployment, what has the government done about inflation? Why, Mr. Speaker, it has done magnificently. In 1975 the cost of living went up 11.5 per cent in Newfoundland. While our gross national product went up 0.8 per cent, the government outdid itself with permitting an inflation rate of 11.5 per cent. So much for its attempts to control the central banks and the currency. And what did it do the next year, in 1976? It twisted our arm even further.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not have the time, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the hon. member has been talking about the economy of Newfoundland, would he say what he would like to see happening in that province? Let him tell us what he would like us to do, instead of criticizing. Let him be concrete, and let us hear what he wants.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
May 10, 1977


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite may be in charge of multiculturalism, but he is not in charge of N ewfoundlanders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: In 1976 our cost of living went up 7.8 per cent, after wage and price controls went on, and these controls represented a direct about face on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. If living costs went down, it was mostly because food prices went down, and these prices have nothing to do with the great wage and price controls program. It is forecast that our cost of living will go up this year at least 7 per cent. That will show you what is happening in Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: Under a provincial Tory government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Instead of bawling out and interrupting my speech, hon. gentlemen opposite should be thinking what to do about this problem.


An hon. Member:: So should you.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let us examine again unemployment in Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: What did you do when you were a minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps hon. members would be fair to the hon. member and allow him to make his speech.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to point to another serious problem in Newfoundland. In January, 1977, in Newfoundland 23,700 people were registered with the Unemployment Insurance Commission as contruction workers without employment. We have a crisis in the Newfoundland construction industry with 23,700 of our construction workers unable to find employment. What is the Canadian government doing to help us overcome the slump in the construction industry? It is spending less this year on public works and marine facilities than it has spent in the last five or six years. There has been no effort at all to help us overcome this kind of unemployment.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the linerboard mill.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you for mentioning that, because the Canadian government was appealed to by the Newfoundland government for help, and the government opposite turned its back on the 1,500 people in Stephenville employed in the linerboard mill. The premier and government of Newfoundland appealed to the Government of Canada for special assistance to help Newfoundland put in place some special programs which would help us in this period of tragically high unemployment. But the Government of Canada turned its back on those requests. Actually it helped to push provincial heads farther under water. Yes, cabinet ministers went down to the province; the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), the
Regional Unemployment
Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and all the rest of them went down there, and they helped to push our heads farther under water. That is the only help we got.


An hon. Member:: What is the Newfoundland government doing?


John Carnell Crosbie: An hon. member asks what the Newfoundland government is doing. The Newfoundland government is borrowing $199 million this year; God knows it should not be borrowing anything. Of that sum, $54 million is for debt retirement, and slightly over $154 million will be used for a capital construction program in Newfoundland this year. That is what the Newfoundland government is doing. It is trying to get its construction workers back to work. They have just had to announce the closure of the linerboard mill at Stephenville. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing humorous about that. They appealed to the Canadian government for help in an attempt to keep that linerboard mill operating, but the Canadian government said no, it is not economic. It would not put its money into the mill and the 1,500 workers involved, it said, will simply have to go on the unemployment list. The government would not help.
That may or may not have been the right decision, but it is a fact that the Canadian government would not help to keep that linerboard mill going. God knows, the province of Newfoundland has done enough in the last five years to keep it going. In addition, the government of Newfoundland has raised its income taxes again. Our personal income tax has gone up 1.5 per cent again. We pay the highest income taxes in Canada. We are the most highly taxed province in Canada. So you cannot say the Newfoundland government and people are not making every effort possible to overcome their problems.


An hon. Member:: By raising taxes!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Government of Canada in Ottawa seems to be concerned only about national unity. The amount of business activity generated by the Newfoundland government's capital program will amount to $300 million, including housing, water, sewer and highway construction, and the like. While the Department of Public Works is to spend $63 million in the elephantine area of Ottawa and Hull, it is to spend only $240,000 in the whole of Newfoundland on public buildings this year. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) announce the other day that the department would undertake a few projects in Gander-Twillingate, and a few in the Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador district. I hope he will announce some programs in a few other districts before he is through.
The government in Ottawa is not taking seriously these tragedies, but the poor, strapped Newfoundland government is undertaking a special job creation program; through its department of social services it is to create 1,000 additional jobs. They are doing everything they can in that small bailiwick to overcome that situation.

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
Our plight in Newfoundland and in the east is desperate. Our economic outlook is bad. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is spending less and less in our area. The Department of Public Works is doing practically nothing under its construction programs. We have another important industry closing, but what do we hear from the Government of Canada? It says it is throwing its hands up; it can't do anything about it. These problems are too great for it to solve. Its only answer is Canada Works and Young Canada Works. That is its answer.
Let us look at some of the things which could be done The Economic Council of Canada publication entitled "Living Together, A Study of Regional Disparities", says some interesting things. I will not deal with sections of the report to do with disparities, because we are all pretty familiar with them. I will give just one or two examples. In 1970 the average Newfoundland family had roughly one more child and about the third less income than its Ontario counterpart. Apart from housing, it faced a higher cost of living. These factors help explain why Newfoundland is an area of net-out migration and Ontario is not. I could go on through the figures and show the disparities between the Maritimes and Quebec and the rest of Canada.
If poverty is defined as the situation where at least 70 per cent of family income is spent on such basic necessities as food, shelter and clothing, then about 34 per cent of the families in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island are poor, compared with 11 and 12 per cent in Ontario and British Columbia respectively. On and on it goes.
With regard to earned income, as might be expected in disparities in earning power, Ontario leads the nation while at the other end of the spectrum the earning power of the average Newfoundland in 1970 was only 55 per cent of the national average, and substantially less than half that of the average Ontarian. It is not their fault they have not got the earning power. They do not have the opportunity for high paying jobs. No matter what factor you look at, there are huge regional disparities in this country despite the transfers of income that have taken place in the past ten or 15 years.
Something interesting that is pointed out in this study that should be noted is the federal wage bill. The people in Ontario often feel how much they are contributing to overcome disparity through tax equalization and the like. It is interesting to note the figures given in this study. Take the wage bill of the Government of Canada, page 201. For 1974-75 the wage bill for general government workers in Canada and Canadian personnel amounted to more than $4 billion, with another $1.6 billion going to wages and salaries for employees of federal corporations.
The table shows that the wages and salaries of general government and military employees in the Atlantic provinces, particularly in Nova Scotia and Ontario, are substantially above the per capita average of $185 for the ten provinces. I will give the figures, Mr. Speaker. If you take the federal wage

bill by provinces and territories, for 1974-75 it spent $130 per capita in Newfoundland, $70.7 million; $440 per capita in Nova Scotia, a good help to Nova Scotia; $238 per capita in Ontario, $1,927 million. That gives a tremendous cost to the province of Ontario. Ontarians should remember that when they are considering what goes out in tax equalization. There is $238 per capita in Ontario, $440 in Nova Scotia, which has done very well, and $130 in Newfoundland, the lowest of any province. The federal spending per capita for wages and salaries is the lowest in Newfoundland. Keep that in mind when we consider what the payments are for tax equalization to the rest of the provinces.
Then compare the distribution of the federal wage bill and the distribution in proportion to provincial population by province. It turns out that Quebec is the least favoured by the federal wage and salary bill. They have a deficiency or deficit per capita of minus $115. Compared to the average, Newfoundland is the next highest with minus $71, while Ontario is plus $74. These tables are very interesting to see how equalization is working in reverse when we look at federal expenditure for wages and salaries in government, Crown corporations, and the armed services.
It is also interesting to note, when considering the capacity of the Newfoundland government to do much about the terrible situation with respect to employment and the economic situation, that at page 223 of the study it is recommended by the Economic Council of Canada that the governments of all provinces should try to increase demand in bad times as in the Keynesian theory. The federal government should try to do it also on a regional basis. It is interesting to note their recommendation at page 223, and I quote:
We recommend that, in all the provinces where unemployment rates are usually higher than the national average, except Newfoundland, each provincial government continuously assess how much of its unemployment is due to demand deficiency and stimulate demand by increasing the full-employment budget deficit or decreasing the full-employment budget surplus, as the case may be.
They exclude Newfoundland from that recommendation because Newfoundland is in such a precarious financial position that they cannot recommend that the province of Newfoundland do that. In other words, the province of Newfoundland does not have the financial wherewithal to spend more in bad times, as recommended at page 223 of the report. They will not take the responsibility of recommending that Newfoundland borrow more than it is presently borrowing. Newfoundland has to look to the Government of Canada which has the fiscal capacity and fiscal policy instruments to help overcome this tragic situation.
Is there any wonder that I am going to support this non-confidence motion today? The government has abandoned any commitment it ever had to develop strong regional economies. It still has a Department of Regional Economic Expansion but that department has not built strong regional economies. It is fine to have it spend money, but it and it alone it not developing strong regional economies. No priority is given to national fiscal policies to help the regions, or to transportation policies or energy policies that will help them.
May 10, 1977

The only new energy policy in the maritime provinces is designed to help only Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. It is a new conservation program. A grant of $500 is made to help a householder insulate his home. In addition to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, that should be applied in Quebec, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and in fact throughout the country. If the government does not have the fiscal capacity to start that all in one year, it can start in one part of Canada and then expand it to the rest of the country.
It is a good conservation measure to have homes properly insulated. It is a humane act of government. It would create tremendous employment in the insulating of homes and in construction work. However, for political reasons the government has only done that in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
It is not an energy policy to help overcome regional disparities. It is a policy to help the Liberal governments in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Soon there will not be a Liberal government in Ottawa to do that.
My time has almost expired, Mr. Speaker. I just wish to add a few words by saying-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have already allowed a couple of minutes to the hon. member for interference. His full time has now expired.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this resolution talks about unemployment and regional disparity within eastern Canada. Representing Gander-Twillingate, on the government side, I would like to talk briefly about the problem, specifically about unemployment, not in the highly political manner of the previous speaker, but objectively.
To solve any problem one must know what the problem is. So it is with government and the problem of unemployment. The problem, as I see it, is that in economically depressed areas the problem itself has never been defined.
To tackle the problem, governments have established a maze of agencies. With every new provincial budget, this or that battle is announced to combat rising unemployment, but the war never really begins. Everyone agrees that, in order to combat high unemployment, industrial development must be encouraged. In order to combat inflation you must increase production and stave off high unemployment as well.
In Newfoundland on the provincial level we have departments of government like rural development, industrial development, and development corporations like the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation. On the federal level we have DREE, FBDB, loans to small business, to the fishery and to agriculture. We have government agencies too numerous to mention unless one were to write them down. All of these agencies, departments of government, government established development corporations, sit down in a board room from time to time to consider this or that application for assistance to create jobs, to increase production. The government, and rightly so, is trying to increase production.
Regional Unemployment
Government have an idea of what is wrong, they have a concept in mind, but they do not understand the problem. To understand the problem one would have to experience the problem, or have enough understanding, enough empathy, to put oneself in the shoes of those who form the majority of the unemployed in the areas defined as economically depressed.
You cannot understand the problem, Mr. Speaker, by taking a plane and flying over the area. You cannot understand the problem by taking a ride in a car through an area of high unemployment. To take a walk down the road does not help either. To speak to the unemployed will tell you something. To read their letters will tell you something. To question them will tell you more. What I am saying is that to really understand their predicament you have to investigate as closely as possible what they think, and do so this day, this month, this year.
By understanding them you discover, whether a person is skilled or not, that he or she would rather work than sit idle; that one feels better to come home after working that day. To understand that is the first step; to understand what it feels like to wonder where your next dollar will come from; to place yourself in the position of someone who cannot feed or clothe his children properly, or not be able to meet the cost of heating your home, or be troubled by bill collectors, or appear in court because you cannot pay the school tax. To understand all that is an absolute necessity. But if you do, then, and only then, are you committed, if you are in a position to do so, if it is your job to do so, to try to correct the disparity that exists, to create lasting employment, to rid that area of the depression, an economic and social depression. It would not be so if the rest of society were in the same condition. The grave injustice is that it is evident to the economically depressed that theirs is a situation of circumstance.
That brings you half way toward understanding the problem. The other half is to understand why established procedures employed by governments to encourage a solution have failed. When you understand that, you understand the problem. All of us may differ on the ultimate solutions to the problem, but to understand the problem is the first step.
In the second half of understanding the problem, one must realize that the initiatives of government have been filled with good intentions. A provincial or federal cabinet minister may feel as if he has accomplished a great deal with his department. A civil servant in that department may be just as committed to the cause. Think how distressed they must feel when they come to the realization that their efforts have been in vain. Or perhaps they never realized the truth. The established procedures have failed miserably. They have failed, perhaps, because the policy was devised by persons who do not understand the unemployed in the highly depressed areas, or who cannot comprehend why established procedures have failed.
The established procedures have failed because they have been based on incorrect assumptions. It is assumed that an extra loan at 11 per cent interest will do the trick for a failing enterprise; you assume that the economists are correct; you

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
assume that thq. established limits of government support are adequate; you assume that these are the only priorities, that this is the direction you should support; you assume-and this gets to the core of the matter-that what you see is all that can be done, that the policy decision makers are correct.
The sole purpose of my intervention in this debate is to show you that the decision makers have been incorrect. Who are these decision makers? It must be humorous to a student of government, to one who might be investigating regional disparity and high unemployment areas, to visit the legislative chambers on the provincial and federal levels. He could visit us today here in Ottawa and listen to the opposition party blame the federal government. Tomorrow he could visit the Atlantic provinces and listen to the opposition parties blame the provincial governments.
Reality exists in looking at our spending structures. Apart from our normal departmental expenditures on both levels, infrastructure agreements on both levels, loans to small business and the normal housekeeping chores, we are left with over $200 million, in the case of Newfoundland, in equalization payments that is passed over to the province to do with as it pleases. Even in DREE the priorities are negotiated. It is a fact that the province should know how best to spend the money for industrial expansion. This resolution before the House is an example of skirting the edges. It displays the point I raised earlier, that the movers of the motion do not understand the problem and therefore can never comprehend the obvious solutions to unemployment in economically depressed areas.
What are the solutions? If you ask that question of a chronically unemployed man with 11 children, trying to make ends meet in Newfoundland, you would get a better answer than asking an economist, or the lawyers who seem so prevalent in legislative chambers or a provincial premier. He would put it very simply. He would say, depending on his geographic location, "Look, why not a fish cannery with markets for the finished product?" or "Why not a hardwood plant?," or "Why not agriculture?" He would ask the simple obvious question, "Why not let me produce?"
The typical response given to that question is, "Well, if a profit is to be made, private enterprise will move in". The typical response is that there are established government agencies to help him get established. Then that unemployed man will say, "You're full of baloney". And he would be right.
Not only are agencies non-existent to see an idea through seriously but there is no agency to keep a good secondary industry going once it is established or if it encounters trouble. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) spoke in this debate. He is a fine minister, probably the best the department has ever had, but if you examine his role in creating long lasting jobs you will find the mechanism just is not there. Yes, DREE has done a lot. DREE puts in water and sewer lines for industrial expansion, paves roads for industrial expansion, builds schools because the provinces cannot afford it, and has an industrial incentives branch to help out a prospective industry. The same can be said for the province of

Newfoundland. They also have their departments, loans and grants agencies. They all help, but they fall short of a realistic incentive to do what should be done. It is for the province to deal specifically with the Newfoundland situation in a real sense; but it still has failed miserably. When you understand the problem, when you know the people labelled as living in a chronic unemployment area, when you know the existing agencies have failed, and when you know the opportunities that exist, then you realize that these areas need something extra. They need special attention.
Consider, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government spends about $1 billion in Newfoundland each year and, if we can believe the provincial budget of $1.2 billion, that makes $2 billion of government expenditure in Newfoundland this year. That is $4,000 for every man, woman and child in Newfoundland. I contend that lack of money is not the problem-it is how that money is spent. That is the problem. That brings me back to the matter of understanding the problem in order to understand the solution.
I believe what we need to solve our problem is a government agency that actually initiates industry, that is, a government department made up of persons who know the area and who can identify its potential wealth where possible, and then see it through with government money. If that sounds to anyone like too much government intervention, then I am afraid they are in favour of welfare and Unemployment Insurance Commission benefits instead of jobs. If anyone objected to that initiative, then that objector does not understand the problem.
A government department is needed that will say, "A viable fish cannery can work here," or "a secondary industry that will provide a finished product using our own natural resources can work here." I can tell the House that, as far as I am concerned, that is the only answer. Also judging from the present policies of provincial governments, like the Newfoundland government, they will never do what so obviously must be done. Therefore the federal government must undertake that chore. It can be done by existing agencies and with existing funding, but it needs to be redirected with new objectives.
The established agencies of both governments which presently have the role of encouraging new industry come into play after the fact, mostly with high priced loans which drag the entrepreneur down until he reaches the point of government initiated foreclosure.
Let me illustrate my point briefly by analyzing my riding of Gander-Twillingate. It is an economically depressed area, and private industry will never develop the wealth and natural resources in that area unless government is prepared to participate. By participation I mean financial; I mean marketing; I mean direct real involvement with present tax dollars that are for the most part presently being wasted on low priority spending. Some may say the present spending is high priority. Yes, high priority here and now, and for the next election; but not for the present and future generations. To put the horse before the cart, is what I am talking about.
May 10, 1977

The economic future of the northeast coast of Newfoundland can only be bright if government spending is directed toward small industry. The industry that does exist is just barely existing. The fishing industry, the lumbering and woods industry are just hanging on by their fingernails, unable to haul themselves up. We will soon be into July, and to some degree 1 call the month of July the dumping month in the fishery. Fishermen phone me with the news they have to dump their catch-squid, herring, mackerel-year after year. The lumbering industry is on the rocks; provincial government foreclosures, one after the other they fall.
When I first got elected three years ago small would-be entrepreneurs, several of them, came to me looking for direction to build barrels for the fishing industry. You see, we import barrels from Norway to Newfoundland. The provincial government finally conducted an experiment; it sent wood over to Norway to make barrels and it worked perfectly. Not one of the many entrepreneurs who wanted to make barrels could get government assistance because the agencies that exist are ineffective. We still import our barrels from Norway.
Smoked salmon sells for at least $15 a pound and up in markets originating in Boston. Yet in the one area where we permit commercial licences for salmon in eastern Canada, that is, on the Newfoundland coast, we have no such exports of smoked salmon. The possibilities are there for industry, lon-glasting industry. We export our fish and our timber in a relatively raw state to be processed into a final product in other countries. When you do find someone interested in a final product, the loans are available at an 11 per cent interest rate, enough to get your head in the wringer if you are lucky enough to get them; and if things go sour for a couple of months, the same government agency moves in to shut you down.
As things presently exist, the man who wants to employ people is by himself, while the provincial government spends $1.2 billion in its budget, and we are at the federal level handing over another $1 billion this year. Thus, when this resolution says that there is now economic stagnation and unprecedented unemployment in Newfoundland, most of our unemployed in that province would ask the question:-so, what else is new?
The solutions are not to be found in shortrun, stop gap, band-aid measures. My opinions, of course, are based on my experience in Gander-Twillingate in the province of Newfoundland, in communities where men are fighting over jobs on Canada Works projects where you make $115 a week, if you are lucky enough to get a job. Do not forget the cost of living is higher in Newfoundland than it is in any other province.
I see my time is running out. Therefore, in conclusion, the best way to reflect the way I feel about the manner in which governments treat our chronically unemployed is to borrow the words of the poet, Elizabeth Browning, which read:
There's too much abstract willing, purposing, in this poor world. We talk by aggregates.
Regional Unemployment
And think by systems, and being used to face our evils in statistics, are
inclined
To cap them with unreal remedies.
Drawn out in haste on the other side the slate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, over the years there has been a great deal of faith put in the DREE program by members of parliament. It is time to look at some of the things that are wrong with that program because we have not received value for our money.
We passed the Regional Development Incentives Act in 1968. In Ontario in 1975-76 we had an approximate DREE program expenditure of $38 million, with subsidiary agreements under the Ontario General Development Agreement for another $15 million and the Regional Development Incentives Act for $14 million. It is interesting to note that Quebec is even in a worse position than Ontario. I am surprised that some of the members from the province of Quebec have not given some indication of why the agreements have not been signed in that province and why there is little activity this year, when last year they spent $114 million under DREE, with $38 million for activities under subsidiary agreements and $13 million for the regional development incentives program.
We should ask the minister why we have had very little success when we make these kinds of expenditures. I think a cabinet minister stood up not long ago to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan). The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond was asking why there was a delay in making an expenditure in Cape Breton Island which would solve some of their problems. I heard the minister say that we cannot do that now because we have to wait until we can do it for everyone, and we cannot do it in the province of Quebec until the situation is settled there. It seems to me we should look at it. That indicates one of the problems we have had with DREE. There should have been no balkanization of this country by DREE. We should have provided a program where we could improve conditions in any province or in every province where an entrepreneur wanted to establish. That is not being done.
If the province of Quebec says it is not interested in signing an agreement, the minister is powerless to provide any help to an industry wishing to start up in that province, even though it might have the know-how and the will to do so.


Marcel Lessard: That is not true.


William Arnold Peters: The minister says that is not true. It is true. That is how it works. We have signed a general agreement with Quebec. We have signed a general agreement with Ontario. We have also signed subsidiary agreements. The minister put out the DREE report, and if it is not true let him say so. If it is not true he is misleading the House. We have signed agreements with the provinces, and the provinces decide whether projects should proceed.
5494

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: No.


William Arnold Peters: Let the hon. member make his own speech-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest we take a look at Standing Order 12(3) which states that when a member is speaking no member shall pass between him and the Chair, nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: 1 am surprised that the minister and some of his colleagues do not know how the DREE program works. I would be prepared to read it to the hon. gentleman, but I do not think it would help. After all, he is supposed to have written it. The fact is, if we were to put in the program I thought we did, both under ARDA and under DREE, we would be able to help any part of Canada which needed help and there would be no need to "suckhole" to a province to get their help before we could put a program in that province. This seems to be one of our problems. We are balkanizing the country because the minister has not taken it upon himself to put these projects into operation.


Walter David Baker: This is uplifting stuff. Listen.


William Arnold Peters: Not long ago the hon. member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) directed a question to the minister and received a reply which hon. members will find on page 4860 of Hansard for April 21 of this year. The Ottawa Journal comments on this reply. It states that more than half the businesses funded under DREE during the last six years in the Renfrew-Pembroke area never got off the ground after getting the grants.
Ad hon. Member: That is totally inaccurate.


William Arnold Peters: Members over there say it is inaccurate. But I have the Hansard here. Applicants in commercial production as of November 30, 1976, were marked with an asterisk. All one has to do is look at the case of Shuffleboard International. In 1970 Shuffleboard International of Pembroke expected to provide 30 jobs. It received a grant of $72,540. The same company, in Renfrew, expected to create 32 jobs and received a grant of $77,238. As of the date on which this reply was presented, the minister told the House that neither one of these plants was in operation.


An hon. Member:: Add them up.


William Arnold Peters: I shall not add them all up. My time does not allow for that. In summary, 32 out of the 62 companies financed under the Regional Economic Expansion Program were not in production as of November 30, 1976. That is what the minister said. Then the article in the paper states that a total of $ 13 million was provided in grants during the six years to last November on the promise that 2,729 new jobs would be provided in the upper Ottawa Valley region. But companies which received almost $7 million of the total grants either

folded or never got started. At least 399 promised jobs disappeared with those government-funded enterprises.
I listened to the minister today and I agreed with him when he said he was dealing with high risk projects in many cases. But I have a word of advice for the minister, if he really wishes to make the program work.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Don't take your advice.


William Arnold Peters: That is a stupid comment. That is the kind of comment you get from New Brunswick. If the minister wants to make it work, why doesn't he take equity in these companies? This would mean putting people on the boards of directors.


An hon. Member:: We tried that before.


William Arnold Peters: Very well. We did it in the case of Texas Gulf and we now run Texas Gulf. But that is a successful operation so we never talk about it. The minister pays about as much attention to his department as he does to members of the House, so I cannot expect him to learn much, but it would seem to me that by taking equity in some of these companies, if not all of them, in proportion to the amount of money we put in, we would be in a position to assist in the running of those operations. The minister will agree with me, I am sure, that there are some very capable people in his department.
Why do so many of these companies go broke? They go broke, very often, because they are unable to provide adequate management. The operation may be larger than the manager had ever handled previously. It might be encountering financial difficulties or marketing problems with which the manager is not familiar. In addition to the grants we make we should be prepared to contribute some of our expertise, since we are capable of doing some of the jobs management is not able to handle. There have been bankruptcies in my area the same as in the Pembroke area.
In many cases companies go broke because management was not successful in marketing the product. Experienced and competent advisers might, in a few hours, offer suggestions for changing the management structure in such a way that the operation would have a far better chance of success. We do not offer such assistance. We simply make a grant available and the minister does not even know whether a company is successful or not, whether it ever employs anybody. All he can go by is the amount of money repaid, and in most cases no repayment is made until the manufacturing operation has been in production for a year. So a lengthy period elapses, probably two years, during which the minister is unable to tell us whether there are any employees working in the plant.
If DREE is to be improved and is to be successful, it has to be improved in a number of ways. First, it should be a universal program. We should not have to worry about what the Ontario minister of industry thinks, or whether or not the province establishes a northern ministry, or whether or not
May 10, 1977

Davis likes the way you cut your hair. DREE should have the decision as to whether or not to put money in the plant if it meets DREE requirements. DREE writes the act, and if the industry does not want to do what it says, it will have to, because in most cases it is under an agreement and that agreement must be approved in Toronto. I just notice here that the head office is not in Toronto, as stated, but in Thunder Bay. The assistant deputy minister's office is in Thunder Bay, not Toronto.


Marcel Lessard: No, it is in Toronto.


William Arnold Peters: It is in Thunder Bay for northern Ontario.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Yes, that is where it is.


William Arnold Peters: It is the minister who should know, who else? If I were him, I would not open my mouth so as not to put my foot in it.
Besides being able to provide a universal program across the country, particularly in areas designated federally as underdeveloped, we should be willing also to take equity in a company. The Canadian Development Corporation has done so very successfully. I do not care if the minister only gets 10 per cent in the company, 20 per cent or whatever it may be, but this amount will provide him with knowledge of how the company is doing. He may decide he wants to put more money in it. Perhaps this linerboard mill will be a disaster. Perhaps if we had put some more money in it at the right time, it would have been successful. There is no point in waiting until the company goes broke and everybody in the subsidiary services is affected, then, when the new management comes, to say, "we will give you another grant", and start all over again. Perhaps the second expenditure could have kept the company in business in the first place. To do that we must have equity.
Finally, I think it is absolutely necessary that we unite the abilities we have in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for sales purposes, our experts in the development of new programs, and our experts in management, together with DREE officials, so that when we start a company with a large DREE grant we may be able to provide it with other services to enable it to operate.
Right now if the government wanted to do anything, the Canadian Development Corporation should to into northwestern Quebec and northeastern Ontario to set up a new company there to take over part of the forest industry. We find bankruptcies by the dozens in both areas. The products of those industries go to exactly the same markets. Not one of those companies is capable of conducting a sales program because none are large enough and they do not have the money or the knowledge to do it. They could get some assistance in providing reasonable transportation facilities and in handling their product, as well as assistance in finding markets for the product. It is foolish to produce lumber if flakeboard is what you need, and conversely, it is stupid to produce flakeboard if you can sell lumber. We could increase the price of lumber by $20, $30 or $40 tomorrow if we could get control of the market structure on behalf of those companies.
Regional Unemployment
I do not suggest that we should take over the lumber industry. All I suggest is that the government should become a partner with the industries that are in difficulty so that it can provide them with some loans, with sales ability, and with assistance in management. I do not think that the border between northern Ontario and northern Quebec should be a division. If the corporation could be established across that border, it would find no objection in northwestern Quebec or in northeastern Ontario.
If the minister really wanted to help in such places as the maritimes, he would find that the problems in northern Ontario are no different from those in the minister's area. If he would just take a look at his area of Lac-Saint-Jean, he would find the same problems there as are in all the areas that are not major manufacturing areas. He comes from an area that is mainly a one industry area, the same as I do. I think he should really look at how the DREE program applies there.
DREE is not doing the job it should be doing. We consider the upper Ottawa valley to be a disaster area. We made special concessions in that area, we set up a special incentives program for the area. It is a disgrace when we put that kind of money into an area to find that 32 out of 62 companies are not in operation at the time when the minister makes his report. This is not my report; the minister made it. If it is not correct, I think he has an obligation to rise in the House as soon as I have completed my remarks and to say so, on a point of order.
I believe there is a great deal of sympathy for areas such as Toronto, Montreal, and other industrial cities that are growing by leaps and bounds at great cost to themselves. Montreal cannot afford a sewage system and it will certainly not be able to afford it if it is made any bigger. The same is true of Toronto.
If there is going to be diversification, let us not have a stupid kind of diversification such as moving the files of DVA to Prince Edward Island. It is just about the silliest kind of diversification I could think of, Mr. Speaker. What we want in this country is a diversity of services. We would like the services moved out to the people.
Wherever possible DREE's obligation is to provide industry to those communities that have the infrastructure in the area, to provide it in cases where the area is in serious difficulty because it has lost its major and often its only industry. The Canadian people are willing to make the payment. We have spent a lot of money under DREE. I think we have an obligation to tell the general public that that money is being supervised and is being protected wherever possible.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I support the minister 100 per cent when he takes risks that the banks and others will not take. But if we take those risks, let us not leave the guy with a huge mortgage on a string. Instead, let us provide him with the infrastructure that will make it possible to have diversification of industry that is successful for the people in the area. Remember that every time a company goes bankrupt, this hurts the people working in the plant and it destroys the service industries that provide the 30 day credit to the plant which they thought would continue to operate. One of the reasons we are having so
80016 - 814

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
much trouble-in the areas we assist is that we do not provide the infrastructure necessary for those companies to operate. We could provide it at a reasonable cost. It is something that they cannot get at any price.
I hope the minister will give some consideration to what I have suggested, and if he thinks there is no merit in my suggestions I hope that at least he will think about them.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to set the record straight regarding two or three major statements made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) which are not correct, to say the least. First of all, he spoke about assistance for industry. I do not have to go to the province to ask for its authorization to offer a grant to an industry which has applied for it in accordance with the rules. This has nothing to do with the province; it is our own decision.
Secondly, the hon. member mentioned that my assistant deputy minister's office is located in Thunder Bay. That is not true. The head office is in Toronto, but we have an office in Thunder Bay headed by a director general. We have now announced the opening of an office in northeastern Ontario, to be exact, in Sudbury.
The third point is with respect to the Renfrew areas. We offered grants to industries, 60 of them. When we answered the question on the order paper, we answered it on the precise day when the industries we named went into operation. The others were not in operation. They had not failed. Some had just withdrawn their application, so they did not receive a grant from us. Others were in the course of getting started, so they also did not get a grant. They were not in operation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.


Marcel Lessard: So it does not mean they all failed. That is not the case. My other point-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest that the minister is now getting into debate. He has already spoken in this debate.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanbury:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robinson:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: When I am after donkeys I am not going to be misled by jackasses.
There are one or two things which are fairly clear here this evening, and I think they bear repeating. The first has to do with the motion itself, and just to refresh the memories of hon. members present, the motion regrets the government's inability in three or four different areas: in fiscal arrangements, transportation, energy, and trade. It is rather interesting that this afternoon and this evening the only minister remotely interested in being here on a continuing basis has been the

Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), and we all appreciate his presence. I hope he goes out of here this evening with a better understanding of the degree to which there is real concern on this side of the Chamber.
My comments this evening will be largely oriented to the role of transportation in the stabilization of the regions we have set forth in the motion, generally speaking, eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
It occurs to me and to many other people in regions of high disparity and in other regions of Canada that national unity, which has been so much on our minds these past few months, will never be achieved until some reasonable and acceptable measure of equal access to the wealth and opportunity of this country is available to all of us, not just to those who may be living in the central region or in other resource wealthy parts of the country.
I think the report of the Economic Council of Canada, "Living Together," goes a long way toward recognizing this. Indeed it has been much of the basis of our conversation here today, and it does show an understanding of the needs of Canadians, particularly those living in the economically depressed regions of Atlantic Canada and Eastern Quebec.
In this connection I have one basic disagreement with the report of the Economic Council of Canada, and that is with the assumption that ever increasingly transportation will play a less important role in regional stabilization and in regional development. I think that while the Economic Council may be correct in saying that, as a percentage of our total capacity to produce wealth on an annual basis, the relevance of transport in those over-all total global figures is going down each year, of course as our service industries grow, as our tourism grows, and as non-transport related industries grow, transport will assume an ever decreasing portion of that larger figure. However, the point is that neither the Atlantic region nor any region in this country will be able to survive without an adequate, well based, fully rationalized, total and complete transportation system. To assume otherwise or to tend to direct our thinking along other paths is wrong indeed, and to that degree I find the report wanting and deficient. Its information is basic statistical information, and some of the lessons it points out are very valuable, but I cannot help but wonder about the conclusion, particularly with respect to the role of transportation. I think transportation is important and always will be important.
I would like to discuss for a moment or two what has been a particularly touchy matter for the minister this afternoon and this evening. It is in the area of consultation, co-operation, and co-ordination with other government departments at the federal level and with the provincial level, with industry and, indeed, with users of transportation. I want to make one or two observations in this regard because from what we have seen and heard from the minister it would seem that transportation is virtually a non-existent area of co-operation and consultation within the minister's capacity.
We have the federal-provincial western transportation committee and the Atlantic transportation committee, but these
May 10, 1977

are not really functioning as well as they could. Perhaps the one in the west is functioning reasonably well in terms of the number of meetings it is having, and perhaps in terms of the identification of goals, but it does occur to the onlooker that not an awful lot of useful, productive progress is being made.
I reiterate my point that in terms of the DREE economic programs which are being carried out to meet the problems we have set forward in our motion, a commitment to rid this country of regional disparity is just simply non-existent. Indeed, in the Standing Committee on Regional Development on May 3, when the minister was asked if Air Canada consulted him about cutbacks in the Atlantic region-this had to do with the so-called unprofitable runs in the Atlantic region operated by Air Canada-he said, and I quote:
Not me personally. I do not know, I am not aware if they have gone through any consultation with my department but I do not think so.
The minister was asked if he thought Air Canada's cutbacks would be detrimental to regional development. He said:
Well I am not totally sure of the implications that it might have on the potential development.
That again was on May 3. He went on a little bit further to say the following:
They answer to the Department of Transport and it is through the Minister of Transport that somebody can really answer the point you are making with me.
Why does the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion not take it upon himself to consult with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) about moves which are detrimental to regional development? Why is it that he is unaware of their impact, even their occurrence, despite the fact that he claims he has a close relationship with MOT with respect to co-ordination of plans and efforts by DREE? I think the minister overstates his case perhaps too much. Granted, he does get involved in the western and Atlantic federal-provincial committees, and I hope out of that some useful endeavours are being made. Perhaps I should be fair. It is not always a one-way street with respect to communication, consultation, and co-operation. The Ministry of Transport also has an obligation to make sure that its planning is fully in tune with the planning of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
Just before I leave this business of consultation, co-operation and co-ordination, it seems to me that the method of the former minister of transport, now a member of that other place, of eliminating what he himself described as a transportation mess in this country relied very heavily on close co-operation, consultation, and co-ordination with other governments and the industry generally. What concerns me about this close consultation and so on can be found in just one or two examples which I will cite. One example was the very detrimental effect of the utterances of the Minister of Transport at the Charlottetown Conference, those of the Council of Maritime Premiers, and I think of Mr. Logan from the province of Newfoundland. They put us off a little bit. We were told pretty clearly that user-pay had died as a principal economic tool of this government, but we find that in fact it has not disappeared, Mr. Speaker.
Regional Unemployment
I would ask hon. members to recall the most recent conference of ministers of transport. What the Minister of Transport likes to refer to as inefficient subsidies and the redirecting of these into the upgrading of highways, support for regional air service upgrading in eastern Canada and so on, were not co-ordinated with DREE. I think it is time that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Transport started bringing their officials together so that they can pursue methods of ensuring that transportation policy and regional economic policy are in tune.
I should like now to touch on a few of the regional services that continue to be of concern to eastern Canada. We must guard against the growing attitude of downgrading as opposed to upgrading rail services in our region. We are pleased that the railway transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission will hold public hearings, limited as they may be. But I wonder why the committee does not meet on the north and south shores of Quebec in relation to rail passenger service. I am surprised that members from Quebec have not made reference to that glaring oversight in their submissions today.
It must be recognized that one mode of transportation in a region such as Atlantic Canada cannot be improved at the expense of another mode of transportation without serious harm to the total program. What we need is a five to eight-year program of rail bed upgrading, modernization of signal and switching procedures, and the provision of new equipment for both passenger and freight services. In this connection it is interesting to note that tenders closed sometime ago for Canadian Pacific's experimental run between Quebec and Montreal. We would like to know when the minister is going to award the contract and when this experiment will take place. How many trains will run? I suggest that as things stand, transportation programs seem to operate in isolation from each other, to the detriment of the user.
With respect to ferry services, I think that if the minister insists upon the establishment of an independent Crown corporation to handle the Canadian National Railway's ferry service on the east coast, parallel discussions should take place on the essentiality of a marine service to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. These discussions should cover matters such as no strikes, no withdrawal of service, and no shutdown of service. These things should be worked out ahead of time and it should be decided whether the service is a designated occupation.
We need a five to eight-year air program designed to stabilize regional air carrier services and rationalization of route structures between main line domestic carriers and regional carriers. We also need upgrading of regional and municipal airports with adequate navigational and safety aids to facilitate the third level air service which is so essential, given the geography and sparse population of Atlantic region centres. But this must not be done at the expense of any other mode of transportation.

May 10, 1977
Regional Unemployment
We also need a three to five-year program to upgrade highways to all-weather standards. This has been promised for about six years but nothing has been done.
With respect to ports and shipping we must guard against the proliferation and development of ports so that we do not have them competing for a level of activity which is insufficient to support more than one. What has been the value to eastern Quebec of the millions of dollars poured into Gros Cacouna? The port is not in use and there appears to be no use for it. Is this another example of little or no consultation or co-operation?
There has been a startling failure on the part of the government to understand the reality of today's movement of containerized cargo. For example, Halifax does not really compete with Montreal; rather it competes with the ports along the Atlantic seaboard. We have to recognize this if we are to develop programs that are integrated and related to the part of the country from which most of us come who are here this evening. Failure to recognize this has cost us expanded container facilities in Halifax. There was poor co-operation between the federal government and the government of New Brunswick with respect to the expansion of the Rodney terminal in the port of Saint John.
What is DREE doing about these things? What is it doing about the rationalization of an over-all port authority-perhaps something like the Port of New York authority-with not only intraprovincial authority but perhaps interprovincial authority as well. What is DREE doing about the rehabilitation of the Halifax shipyard which by next September or October will lose 1,000 jobs? In committee a few days ago the minister told us that as far as he knew no talks had taken place in the last three or four weeks.
These are all areas that require the closest co-operation between the Department of Transport and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Unfortunately there do not seem to be any areas of close co-operation between the two departments. Perhaps the minister would look into these matters in the near future.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, an hon. member opposite seems to be trying to prove that his head size and his I.Q. are the same. If he would sit down and be quiet I will try to untangle some of the web of misinformation that has been woven here this afternoon.
I have sat here listening to all of today's debate, trying to see if the opposition had any purpose in presenting this trumpery motion which the House has considered today. The only conclusion I can come to, having listened to all opposition speeches in this debate, is that they had to include five or six different topics in the motion because they are so sterile of policy that they could not spend a full day discussing the one subject of regional economic expansion. They had to include in the motion the subjects of fiscal policy, transportation, energy,

trade, economic expansion-the whole bag as it were. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a single, coherent policy statement enunciated by hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Tell us about New Brunswick.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, there is another member opposite who is yelling out and becoming a bit of a pain in the neck, although some members may have a lower opinion of him than that. This afternoon we heard the opposition gloating about this country's unemployment rate. But not one of them bothered to mention that in the last ten years there has been an absolutely phenomenal growth in this country's labour force and a phenomenal growth in employment.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: And unemployment.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: But they do not want to talk about these facts, because if they were to say something positive they would have to expose the fact that they cannot put forward any policy alternatives.


John R. Rodriguez: Tell us what is happening in your own part of the country.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) was highly critical of the government's monetary and fiscal policy, but not once did he put forward an alternative solution. He criticized DREE for being insensitive to the needs of the provinces and regions of this country, but his criticism is absolute proof that he does not know what he is talking about when he talks about DREE. In the province of New Brunswick, for example, there are presently in existence ten subsidiary agreements under GDA dealing with highways, forestry, agricultural development, industrial development, the Kent region pilot project, the King's Landing historical settlement, the Saint John and Moncton arterial highways, tourism, planning, and minerals and fuels. Every one of those is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The federal government is giving to the province under these agreements a total of $150 million.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr.* Stanfield) complained that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is not co-operating with provinces in developing a plan for the regions. I suggest that not one provincial government in the Atlantic region would countenance for a minute an area of another province getting special treatment at the expense of another province. My colleague, the hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), this afternoon referred to the behaviour of certain provinces. I suggest that the actions of New Brunswick illustrated in a classic way the hon. member's contention. The government of that province has been asking the federal government, and specifically the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, to solve all the ills of that province so that the provincial government can wash its hands of them. Indeed a provincial minister was heard to say at a
May 10, 1977

public meeting, "I wish DREE would get on with the job so that we could look after the problems in the other part of the province." I suggest the hon. member was referring to that situation, when talking about the province of New Brunswick having two capitals-Fredericton for the south of the province, and Ottawa for the north. The people of New Brunswick can no longer tolerate that situation.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) in his usual, rambling way, spoke of DREE balkanizing the country. He forgot completely that this country was balkanized economically long before DREE was established. He spoke about the department taking an equity position in DREE assisted companies. Has the hon. member any idea at all of the increase which would be needed in the department's manpower if departmental representatives were to sit on every board of directors of DREE assisted companies and help in the making of the many corporate decisions which must be made? The hon. member's statement was absolutely silly. I am sure also, and I am still dealing with his speech, that the people of New Brunswick will be happy to know that he considers all statements coming from New Brunswick to be stupid. At least that is what he said. But that statement is probably indicative of the poor showing his party traditionally makes in New Brunswick elections.
Hon. members opposite suggested in this House that the minister and the department do not listen to the advice of provincial and regional authorities. I want to lay that spurious charge to rest, too, Mr. Speaker, because the record in New Brunswick is sorry indeed. The consequences have been unfortunate when the department has listened to the incompetent advice of the Tory provincial administration in that province. 1 refer to Bricklin, Brunswick Mills, Fleming and Gibson, Venus Electric, Cirtex, and a whole host of other companies which could be mentioned, all of them provincially incorporated.
In fact Bricklin was the dream child of our premier and a fly-by-night boy from south of the border. What happened? Mr. Speaker, $21 million of public money went down the tube, down the drain, with nothing to show for it except a couple of cars of a type no longer made, stashed in some political friend's garage across the river from Fredericton. That is the result of advice DREE accepted from the province in good faith. The department was led down the garden path.
Brunswick Mills was set up to saw 100 million board feet of lumber. A so-called expert was brought in from another part of the country to run the mill. But the 100 million board feet of lumber were not there to be sawed.
The case of Fleming and Gibson is another specific example of the department of natural resources in New Brunswick having absolutely no idea of the resources potential of the forests of New Brunswick. A mill was set up, under a company which had formerly managed its affairs well, to saw 37 million board feet of lumber. DREE readily agreed to give that company assistance. Unfortunately, only between 12 million and 15 million board feet of lumber were available to support the mill. What happened? The company is in receivership and DREE, of course, has lost the money.
Adjournment Debate
Members of the Tory party opposite said repeatedly this afternoon that the minister does not listen to provincial authorities. I say to him, he had better not listen to some of them as much as he has in the past, or the department will be ruined with poor advice. It is not the minister's job to go to the forests of New Brunswick or any other province, to determine what resources exist there. That is the responsibility of the province to determine. And what is the province doing which is supposed to take this responsibility?
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 58, the proceedings on the motion of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) a question concerning the expenditures of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the area known as Granville Island in the city of Vancouver. I asked what is the federal government's policy concerning the future of this property and what is the purpose of the proposed expenditure? Those are two clear inquiries in one question. Unfortunately the minister's answer was not clear. He gave, as those who have come to know him have learned to expect, a typical non-answer. He said that this is a demonstration project which has already given excellent results and which involves an important part of Vancouver. He said this project has been under way for a certain number of years and it is now about to be completed.
The words "demonstration project" have been used in the past. They certainly imply to me the use of housing. However, I can assure the House there is no housing involved in the Granville Island project. As to it being an important part of Vancouver, I certainly agree. It is still a major industrial site downtown in the city of Vancouver. Perhaps the minister was referring to the fact it lies in the constituency of his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). I am not certain about that.
The minister says it has been under way for a certain number of years and it is now about to be completed, but he

May 10, 1977
Adjournment Debate
does not say with what result or purpose. He in no way indicates why it is necessary to spend a further $25 million on that particular site.
Perhaps I should explain that Granville Island is not really an island. It is a man-made peninsula in False Creek that was built during the thirties. For many years it has been an industrial estate, well located I should say.
During the tenure of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs between January, 1972, and August, 1974, the property was transferred by the previous government body which owned it to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the corporation for which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has responsibility. At that time the matter was raised in certain quarters. I raised it here because there is absolutely no housing and no mortgages involved in Granville Island. It was asked why CMHC should be involved in such a property.
Just 11 days ago the Vancouver Sun announced that in a surprise move on Friday, which would be April 29, the Granville Island trustees accepted not one but two proposals for new theatre facilities as part of island redevelopment. The Arts Club is going to build two theatres, one of 350 seats and the other of 200 seats. The Theatre Space Project is the other one. It too is going to build a theatre. I quote from the article:
The federal government is in the process of transforming the former light industrial park to "people" use, and the introduction of some form of theatre space has been a major priority in government planning.
I still have not got anywhere near housing. Some four years ago, in June, 1973, the planning department of the city of Vancouver put out a policy booklet on False Creek dealing with Granville Island which lies in False Creek. I quote from that booklet:
An urban public area, some open and park space with waterfront walkways. Recreational, commercial and entertainment facilities. A significant portion of current leases will expire in the early 1980's so that large scale redevelopment can be expected at that time.
All that happened when they first transferred that property to CMHC is that they hired a former president of the Liberal association in British Columbia, a gentleman named Russell Brink. They paid him a salary higher than that of members of parliament and called in a project manager. They bought a few leases when they expired and the project manager created a park in the corner of the island. Since then several restaurants and other people and places have come along. Now we are to have theatres. All of this is on this small so-called island which is served by a circuituous two-lane roadway which runs under the Granville Street Bridge. This is hardly a place for automobiles and people.
A $25 million expenditure should not surpise us very much. It is a continuing example of the operations of CMHC under the present president, Mr. Teron. There have been recent criticisms of blatant examples of the corporation insuring loans for a luxury hotel in Ottawa which went bankrupt, and ever increasing loans on buildings such as York Place in Hamilton which is in trouble at the moment because the developers were not able to finish the project.

Years ago when one wanted to fool Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, buildings were designed and called apartment buildings. Then after Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation financing had been obtained, it was a simple matter to convert them to hotels. It was a good way to finance hotels, and it happened in Vancouver a number of times. But in the case I referred to here in Ottawa, the building was originally planned to be, and was stated directly on the building permit filed with the city of Ottawa to be, an hotel.
I realize I am digressing a little, Mr. Speaker, but I do so to illustrate the irresponsible attitude which is being demonstrated by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We need better answers than that.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how a member can confuse hotels, hostels, and Granville Island; it really surprises me.
The Granville Island project was initiated in 1973. At that time up to $25 million was authorized for the acquisition of land and the buying up of existing industrial leases for this long term redevelopment project. Granville Island has an area of 42 acres-it is quite a substantial site-and is located in Vancouver's False Creek, adjacent to the city centre of Vancouver.
The government's intentions with respect to the Granville Island property are to plan this site as an inner core redevelopment, related to the over-all plans and priorities of the city of Vancouver. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is generally concerned with improving the quality and efficiency of the urban condition. The department works closely with federal government departments and agencies as well as other levels of government which have programs and capabilities available in support of over-all urban objectives.
CMHC was appointed as agent for the assembling and management of the Granville Island site. Roughly $14 million of the $25 million authorized has been committed to the project to date to cover land assembly and site improvement. The specific end use of the island will determined when optimum alternatives, bearing in mind the development of adjacent areas of the city, have been identified.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: You mean, you don't know?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, we don't know. It is a people place; you said that yourself. The eventual use of the site will relate to public needs and the development potential of the waterfront area.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Granville Island may be cited as a demonstration project, and it is, but we hope that with the people of Vancouver we will be able to plan that area so that their local needs and wishes are met.
May 10, 1977


ENERGY-MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF REQUEST BY ARCTIC GAS FOR GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE TO RAISE CAPITAL
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, this matter arises from a question I asked in the House on May 6 concerning the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. It was prompted by evidence which was given before the National Energy Board by the Canadian Arctic Gas consortium. This consortium had indicated, not once but several times, that it would be seeking government guarantees in order to raise the capital which would be required to build a Mackenzie Valley pipeline. My question was a long one, and without going into it further what I asked basically was whether the government had been approached, at least initially, to provide some form of guarantee, and I asked whether negotiations were under way and, if so, what was their state.
The answer that I received from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) was that he did not know but he said "I will be pleased to find out". One of the reasons for putting this matter on the late show was to follow up that question in view of that remarkably co-operative answer given me by the minister. I am hoping tonight I can be enlightened not only in terms of whether negotiations are taking place with the Arctic Gas consortium with respect to guarantees-that is particularly significant in view of the Berger report that was just tabled-but also to find out what is really the nature of those guarantees.
Perhaps I can assist the hon. parliamentary secretary in a couple of ways, and perhaps he can correct me if I am wrong. The nature of these guarantees is really two-sided. The first guarantee they are seeking is an insurance scheme to cover interruption of service. Shippers would be subject to an allevents tariff and hence liable to pay Arctic Gas Pipelines despite non-delivery. The second form of guarantee is equally serious. It is a guarantee of backstop financing from the government. This is a guarantee where, if there are overruns, the government will back up major overruns on the project.
We have had some experience. We have seen what happened on the Alyeska line, and we have seen what happened on a myriad of other projects in Canada, such as the kind of overrunning we witnessed of James Bay. Alyeska started off with a $900 million projection. I think they are now at $9 billion in terms of costs. The risks in the Mackenzie Valley, in terms of overrun, are quite fantastic.
What is significant about the guarantees sought is that the people who know something about money, both in New York and in Toronto, have insisted that this government back up this private consortium because they cannot get the money from the private sector. That should tell the members of this House just how valid that Mackenzie Valley proposal is, because the private sector itself will not back it without government guarantees. That, even without the Berger report, should be a satisfactory reason to turn down this most unwise
Adjournment Debate
proposal in terms of bringing Arctic gas to the United States market.
In terms of the project itself, I should point out that I am not going to deal with the sensitive questions concerning native rights and the environment. That will be dealt with, no doubt, in this House in much more detail. On the narrow issue, the question of government guarantees, where this government is asked to guarantee a pipeline in terms of interruption of service, there is a clear conflict of interest between the Department of the environment and the Department of Finance. There will be a tremendous impetus on the part of the government to see there is no interruption of service. Therefore the protection of the environment, once the pipe is in, would be a great risk because of the guarantee proposal itself.
If you are talking about backstop guarantees, let us say the Mackenzie Valley goes to $15 billion or $20 billion by the time they are finished, and certainly in terms of Arctic construction we have a number of precedents to know these figures are very serious and can get away out of hand. The type of winter construction that is necessary is very high risk in terms of trying to put a figure on the construction cost. To ask the Canadian people to back up approximately $8 billion in guarantees for that pipeline would be one of the great sellouts in Canadian history. Even the private market will not touch it with a ten-foot pole unless the government steps in and guarantees it. That is sufficient reason alone, without the Berger report, to say no to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
That is why I ask the parliamentary secretary, if there have been approaches, what kinds of approaches they have been; is my information accurate in terms of the kinds of guarantee Arctic Gas is seeking; and last, but not least, I am pleased to know the minister said he did not know but would be pleased to find out. That is why I raised this matters tonight. I am waiting, with an open mind on the subject, to find out just exactly what has happened on the guarantees.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I know only too well how open is the mind of the hon. member.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That was a facetious remark.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In that spirit, I am very glad to indicate to him that I do have a very full and complete answer on the question which he raised.


An hon. Member:: That is unusual.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: "That is unusual", as the hon. member said.
Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Ltd. now estimates the total capital cost of their project at over $9 billion. The equity investment is expected by CAGPL to total about $2.5 billion, with the bulk of remaining investment supplied by bonded debt and bank term loans. As in most projects of this nature, the financng arrangements have to be committed before construction can proceed.

May 10, 1977
Adjournment Debate
CAGPL has said that lenders would be reluctant to commit themselves unless they could be assured with reasonable certainty that the project would, in fact, be completed and that its operation would not be susceptible to frequent or prolonged interruption. In their submissions to the National Energy Board CAGPL has made clear that their financing plans include a 25 per cent contingency allowance, to provide for cost overruns or cash shorfalls from operations. Even so, CAGPL maintains that potential lenders-mutual funds, trust companies and institutions-might not be prepared to bear the full risks of proceeding, and it is in this connection that the possibility of government completion guarantees have been raised.
CAGPL has raised the matter informally with several government departments. No application or request for government assistance as to either form of guarantee to which the minister referred has been made and there has been no commitment from the federal government. Certainly, it would be premature to consider guarantees until the NEB and Berger reports had been considered, the make-up of the successful consortium was known, and the implications of financial involvement had been studied in detail. Assistance could only be considered in the last resort if a pipeline were deemed to be of vital national interest and demonstrably incapable of a private financing.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if he would keep the House better informed about the progress which is being made at the North-South Conference, particularly on the issues of commodity price stabilization and special drawing rights, the core issues in the building of peace, the very issues he himself introduced in his speech in Washington.
I made that request of the Prime Minister because of the very strong statement made by Robert McNamara, President of the World Bank, to the effect that the North-South Conference, otherwise known as the Continuing Conference on International Economic Co-operation, was in danger of foundering because the industrialized nations had not yet come to grips with the real issues. I am making my appeal tonight for a better flow of information to the Canadian people as a means of sustaining the policies which have been arrived at now, in the latest development, at the London summit conference which took place over the week end.
What we are talking about here is not just a question of aid to the developing nations. We have long since given up that band-aid approach. We are talking about substantive issues which are at the heart of the reasons underlying world poverty. We are talking particularly about institutional changes which

would bring about, for example, a commodity fund for the 18 principal commodities produced by the developing world, as well as the establishment of some mechanism to repair the tremendous damage which is being done to developing nations in consequence of their debt position. The debt of the developing nations now totals $165 billion. The crisis of debt together with the need for a commodity fund is at the heart of the North-South Conference to which the Prime Minister referred in his Washington speech.
Now the London summit meeting has taken place I suggest to the House that, despite the little attention which has been given to it by representatives of the government here, both in the House and in the media, a break-through has been made over the week end which brings a new ray of hope for the North-South Conference which will be concluding its present round of business at the end of this month in Paris. I make this statement because, going through the communique which was issued by the seven leaders of the industrialized countries, I see such statements as these-I will quote a couple of them from the communique. They read as follows:
We are agreed to do all in our power to achieve a successful conclusion of the CIEC (Conference on International Economic Co-operation) and we commit ourselves to a continued constructive dialogue with developing countries.
We aim to increase the flow of aid and other real resources to those countries, we invite the Comcon countries to do the same ... the message of the Downing Street summit is thus one of confidence: in the continuing strength of our societies and the proven democratic principles that give them vitality; that we are undertaking the measures needed to overcome problems and achieve a more prosperous future.
Not only have they given us just rhetoric, but there is a commitment to continuing the movement toward a common fund.
There are those who are interpreting the communique as a significant step forward in establishing linkages between the prices of commodities that are exported to the developing world and what has to be imported in the way of manufactured goods from the west. I will quote again one or two sentences that lend some hope to this positive interpretation of the communique when they say:
We will provide strong political leadership to expand opportunities for trade to strengthen the open international trading system, which will increase job opportunities.
We reject protectionism-it would foster unemployment, increase inflation and undermine the welfare of our peoples.
That is what took place over the week end, and I suggest that the influence of President Carter has been very notable in the changed attitude of the Americans who are the swing country in the industrialized world in all the negotiations that take place in international forums today.
We have to ask ourselves this question: are we only talking about rhetoric, or are there some substantial gains being made, because we have to keep in mind the admonition from that
May 10, 1977

economic sage, John Kenneth Galbraith. I do not know if all my colleagues would agree with everything he has written, but I think that one or two of his choice comments are particularly relevant, particularly the one which says international conferences are meant to give an appearance of progress even if no action actually takes place.
The problem now is the situation between the rich and poor countries of the world, as demonstrated to us must convincingly in the statement made to the subcommittee on international development here in parliament by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth in a most eloquent testimony which I commend to members of the House. That situation is now critical. It calls for action, not just rhetoric. That is why 1 return to the question tonight which I posed to the Prime Minister's representative here. Is he going to make some specific comments tonight on what Canada is going to do as distinct from what we say and giving lip service to this type of communique that raises hopes all over the world?
I want to know if Canada's aid will go forward or will it go back, because we have been going back in our percentage which has dropped from .58 per cent of GNP to .51 per cent this year, and Mr. Dupuis, the head of CIDA, said he will not rule out the possibility that it might even go below .5 per cent because they cannot even estimate with precision what our aid picture is today. Are we going to go ahead in open trade or are we going to build more protectionism into our society?
The textile policy announced in the House last December was a retogressive step. If we are not going to have industrial adjustment programs that will help to solve the world's unemployment situation as we go into more high technology production for the goods that the world needs, I think this is really a step backward on the part of Canada and something that gives the lie to the Prime Minister's noble rhetoric.
On the question of unemployment, here we are talking about solving international unemployment. We are faced with the highest unemployment we have ever had in this country. Without a massive effort to show the world that we can cure unemployment in our own society, it hardly gives us credence to go into international conferences and say we will take steps to solve the world's unemployment situation.
On the question of the commodity fund, I want to know how much Canada will put into it. Will we actually press for the establishment of a mechanism to renegotiate the present debt and avoid a new debt, or are we just going to give lip service to communiques that raise hopes falsely? Those are the questions I put to the Prime Minister, and I ask for some specific answers tonight.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I did not know exactly the topics which would be developed by the hon. member, I cannot answer all the questions he raised.
However, Canada continues to work to bring about a successful conclusion to the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. Hon. members will be aware that the North-South dialogue was an important element at the Downing Street summit this past week end. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) was especially concerned that the leaders of the seven industrialized nations present should give full recognition to the needs of the developing countries. The communique of the meeting will show that this concern was shared by all. The communique took note of progress which has been made, and the leaders made some specific pledges for action.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) and other ministers have been deeply involved in these issues and have made substantial contributions to the formation of Canadian policy. Action now appears likely at the CIEC in the key area of energy, commodity arrangements, including a possible common fund, and on a range of financial issues, including debt and levels of development assistance.
In all of this the role of the government House leader (Mr. MacEachen) in his capacity as co-chairman of the conference has been crucial to the continuing dialogue. Together with the other co-chairman, Dr. Manuel Perez-Guerrero, the Venezuelan Minister of State for International Economic Affairs, he has ensured the continuation of the conference, which at one time seemed very likely to fail. After considerable negotiation both developed and developing countries now appear ready to proceed to the final ministerial level meeting in Paris at the end of this month. The deputy co-chairman of the President of the Privy Council, the president of CIDA, is in Paris tonight for a review of the situation with conference participants following on the summit meeting last week end and following final preparatory meetings which have been under way in Paris.
The major concern of Canada is the desire to see a substantial contribution made to the economic development of developing countries. The government has been encouraged by progress in the North-South dialogue within and outside CIEC in recent months, and Canada will continue to play its part in contributing to concerted action by industrialized countries to improve the economic well being of developing countries.
Mr. Speaker, is my time up?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.

May 10, 1977


Fernand-E. Leblanc: 1 have other matters to discuss. Mr. Roche: We want action.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Words are not enough.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 o'clock p.m. Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Wednesday, May 11, 1977