1980-06-20

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
29 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 20, 1980


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, i rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing importance.
In view of this week's controversial ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that section 33(3) of the federal Fisheries Act is unconstitutional, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That the government be directed to immediately prepare legislation to amend the federal Fisheries Act in such a way as to prevent the dumping of logging wastes directly into streams frequented by fish, provided that biological damage to fish stocks can be predicted in advance, and provided also that such authority will respect the constitutional right of the provinces to authorize and regulate logging operations on adjacent watershed areas.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of House of Commons Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the federal government recently created the position of ambassador for disarmament, and that Canada supported in principle the final document of the United Nations special session on disarmament in 1978 and also endorsed, with all other UN member states, the goal of general disarmament in 1961, and in view of the fact that disarmament must be achieved by the efforts of all governments negotiating through gradual and balanced steps, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett):
That this House support a proposal for a global referendum on disarmament at the thirty-fifth session of the UN General Assembly, to be sponsored by the government of Canada, so that humanity can participate in the historic choice for a disarmed world.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONVENTION CENTRES
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent consideration under Standing Order 43.
The government has acted preferentially and with political overtones with regard to its policy of funding assistance for convention centres. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That the federal government readjust its convention centre funding policy and announce immediately a grant for construction of the Edmonton convention centre.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LANGUAGE TRAINING FOR EMPLOYEES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, last week I proposed a motion under Standing Order 43 which gained near unanimous approval, and Your Honour stated 1 might move it later. I wish to do so today.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the House leader of the Conservative party:
That this House urges the Committee on Members' Services to give positive consideration to making the language training presently available to members of Parliament available to employees of members of Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

June 20, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DISCUSSIONS ON INCREASED USE OF COAL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has stated that coal is an important part of the government's energy program, and whereas both western and eastern Canada have large deposits of coal, much of it being sulphur-free, and whereas central Canada is importing large volumes of coal, therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House urge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and other ministers in the Government of Canada to initiate discussions with their provincial counterparts in the provinces of central Canada with a view to working out a program to use more Canadian coal and thus keep the jobs and money involved in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That this House, noting the fine statements which have been made about the rights of women, statements which have not been followed by the taking of positive steps to establish and protect those rights, calls on the government to take affirmative action to establish equality for women in all phases of our economy, particulary in employment opportunities, access to adequate training and upgrading, equal pay for work of equal value, and equality between men and women in all pension plans.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] (mo)



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, in view of the admitted need for rationalization and reform of RCMP internal regulations and procedures, the dissatisfaction being expressed by force members from different areas of the country concerning the lack of natural justice for members, and the four-year delay in doing anything of substance with the Marin commission recommendations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Solicitor General personally examine the circumstances surrounding the background of a board hearing which took place in Halifax, Nova Scotia, yesterday involving Constable Donald A. Bates, who appears to be another of several members from that area arbitrarily selected for dismissal over a period of time and, more importantly, that he expedite the type of procedures and actions recommended by Mr. Justice Marin in his report of January, 1976.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
 * *



SMALL BUSINESS


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Having regard to the special vulnerability of Canadian small businessmen who compose the independent fuel marketers of Canada, particularly those of Ontario and Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):
That the government issue, forthwith, a policy statement setting forth those measures which will be used to guarantee these independents access to adequate supplies of petroleum products at equitable prices.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by
June 20, 1980

the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), on a matter of pressing necessity to Canada's pediatricians, 1 move:
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs investigate the escalating use of rear-fender bicycle seats for children, and that his department issue safety standards because of an alarming increase in serious accidents to these tots who are now largely unprotected.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



COST-SHARING OF TIDAL POWER PROJECT AT ANNAPOLIS RIVER CAUSEWAY-MOTION UNDER S O. 43

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia have concluded an agreement sharing the cost of the development of a tidal power project at the Annapolis River causeway in Nova Scotia-on which the official sod-turning ceremony will take place tomorrow-whereas this site is near the cradle of civilization on the North American shore, and whereas the potential of this pilot project could be Canada's cradle for world leadership in the development of tidal power, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this House extend congratulations to the political leaders and officials who have made possible this demonstration of working federalism.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given that the Prime Minister will be meeting President Carter next week in Venice to discuss a number of bilateral issues, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House urge the Prime Minister to put forcefully Canada's case on the east coast fishing dispute so that the president can use his good offices to impress upon the United States Senate the need to ratify the fishing agreement with Canada as soon as possible.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the Bank of Canada interest rates have again fallen and the gap widens between what the commercial banks are charging their customers and the Bank of Canada rate. When going in the opposite direction, the commercial banks are very quick to respond. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to contact his cronies in the banking community and instruct them to clean up their act.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



OIL PRICING AGREEMENT WITH ALBERTA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of serious and urgent concern.
Whereas the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has failed to finalize an energy pricing agreement with Alberta, and whereas this could well mean a full year's delay in the development of the Alsands project at Fort McMurray and the Imperial Oil project at Cold Lake, at horrendous cost to the Canadian economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to finalize by June 30 a pricing agreement with Alberta, the Alsands consortium and Imperial Oil for the production of synthetic crude, to allow these two huge developments to proceed on schedule.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 20, 1980
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of both ministers responsible for answering questions relating to the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline, 1 shall direct my question to the Minister of Finance whom I know to be completely knowledgeable and familiar with pipeline-related matters.
The government has taken the position that there must be firm guarantees that the whole of the line will be built by 1985 before it gives approval to the construction of any of the Canadian portion. Can the minister tell the House, in addition to the existing legislation and the international agreement now in place what further assurances the government requires in order to permit the Canadian portions of the line to go ahead?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, at this point I am not in a position to advise the hon. member what further detailed assurances may have been requested by the minister responsible for the northern pipeline, but obviously, as the hon. member is aware, one of the necessities of the Government of Canada is to ensure the completion of the total line, as has been our objective from the beginning.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the government must surely be aware of the nature and extent of the assurances it is going to require before permitting the construction of the Canadian portions of the line. Has the government communicated the nature and extent of those assurances it requires to the United States government, in order to put them in the position of being able to acquiesce or otherwise to those assurances required by this government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that from the very beginning it had been the determination both of the United States government and the Canadian government to secure the completion of the gas pipeline. As my hon. friend knows, the Canadian government and the Parliament of Canada put this country in a position to have that line completed expeditiously.
Since that time, the arrangements, particularly the financing of the line, have not been completed in the United States. That certainly is at the very heart of the continuing assurances that are required and understood in the United States of the completion of this line.


Erik Nielsen: The United States sponsors of the line issued a statement of intentions yesterday with respect to partial financing of the line. Do those assurances go to the extent of meeting the Canadian requirements? If not, should it not be the government's position to spell out the assurances required, in order to give approval to the Canadian sections of the line before the deadline expressed by the Canadian sponsors, who
said yesterday that unless cabinet came down with a position the western leg of the line would be abandoned at the end of August?
Surely it is time for the government to stop groping and fumbling around on this issue and come out with a firm statement of the requirements in order that the Canadian sponsors can go ahead with the job.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there has been no groping on the part of the Government of Canada on this particular project from the original negotiations, from the passage of the law and from the setting up of the Northern Pipeline Agency. The Government of Canada has been in a position from the very beginning to accelerate the expeditious construction of the line.
I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no default on the part of the Government of Canada in the construction of the line, as inferred by the hon. member. The contrary is the case. We have been urging the United States government for quite some time to put itself in a position for this line to be built. May 1 tell my hon. friend, as 1 understand it, that the statement of intention made yesterday by the parties mentioned had to do, not with the over-all financing of the line itself but with the design of the line, which is quite a different matter.


ALASKA HIGHWAY NATURAL GAS PIPELINE-OIL PRICING AGREEMENT WITH ALBERTA
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my questions are supplementary to those which the hon. member for Yukon asked. They are also directed to the Minister of Finance because of his special knowledge in this area.
The minister indicated there has been no groping with regard to this natural gas pipeline. If there has been no groping, there certainly appears to be foot-dragging or at least some new conditions imposed by the federal government. It has been suggested that perhaps these new conditions, or this foot-dragging have to do with the oil pricing agreement.
With the government's desire to get its own way in the oil pricing agreement, would the minister assure the House that the government is in no way utilizing its regulatory authority over the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline as a club or to get its own way in terms of an oil pricing agreement with the producing provinces?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the determination of the Government of Canada to get ahead with this project stands apart from the current oil price negotiations. I do not think the hon. member is doing the project any service by inferring that foot-dragging is taking place on the Canadian side.


Erik Nielsen: The ball is in your court.
June 20, 1980


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is absolutely no foot-dragging on the Canadian side. 1 think the company involved in the project would be the first to admit that there has been absolutely no default or failure on the part of the Government of Canada or the Northern Pipeline Agency. I do not think that our determination to have this line constructed enters into the current negotiations. One does not affect the other, as far as 1 am concerned.


Harvie Andre: The president of Foothills Pipelines (Yukon) Ltd. indicated that unless the cabinet responds with a positive decision by July 15, there will be at least a year's delay. If nothing is done by the end of August, there could be a delay longer than that.


Erik Nielsen: Abandonment.


Harvie Andre: Abandonment, perhaps. Also, the cabinet has recently imposed conditions which the American sponsors of the line do not understand; they do not know how to respond to them. This is leading, naturally, to a conclusion that perhaps the federal government has some new strategy in mind.
If the minister is assuring the Elouse that it is still progressively pursuing this pipeline, and the government is not linking it to oil pricing or to a gas export tax-which is something else that has been suggested-would the minister assure the Elouse that there will be a favourable decision made prior to July 15, the deadline for commencement of work this winter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has introduced a new element into his questioning. Instead of talking about over-all construction of the line, he is now presumably asking us under what conditions we would authorize the pre-build.
The answer to that is quite simple, it seems to me. It is that the pre-build could only be authorized if the Canadian government were satisfied that the total line itself were to be constructed. It does not seem to be in the interests of Canada to construct the pre-build pipeline in order to push Canadian gas into the American market without any assurance that in the future American gas from Alaska will go into that market. That is totally in contradiction with the initial conception of this particular project.


Harvie Andre: Perhaps the minister could do everybody, including himself, a favour and indicate to the House what additional conditions are required above and beyond those in the act in order to complete the whole line. Perhaps we could commence work this afternoon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, that is a simple question to answer. When the Americans show the financeability of the line, which they have not been able to do, that would be the assurance required.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the successive decreases in the bank in Canada and the fact that the banks have been reluctant to bring down the prime rate, especially for consumer lending and small business loans, and recognizing the fact that the interest rate spread is the highest it has been in recent history, can the minister explain why he has failed to act to prevent the banks from gouging the consumers the way they have been doing, as reflected by the very high profit pictures over the last little while, especially in view of the fact he made commitments in this House previously concerning this matter?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I do not agree at all with the premises of the hon. member's question.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the minister may not agree, but many other authorities do. Can he say why he has failed to act on a matter that he discussed previously and made commitments on in this House with regard to bringing down interest rates charged by credit card issuers in this country, such as Chargex, Master Charge and the multinational oil companies which have all substantially increased their credit card interest rates?
In view of the falling cost of money now, does the minister agree the consumers are being exploited? Does he agree he made commitments previously, and what is he going to do to deliver some action?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, surely the hon. member knows that the use of a credit card is an option which is offered to those who buy products; consequently, there is no interest incurred if the user of that credit card pays his bill within 30 days. It is only when the bill is paid late that interest begins to be added. Consequently, if the consumer finds that the charge for use of the credit card is too high, there is a very straightforward solution, which is to avoid using the credit card.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Finance, who certainly cannot concur with the previous answer. Since, obviously, Consumer and Corporate Affairs will not be protecting the consumer, can the Minister of Finance explain his reluctance to build protective provisions into the Bank Act by which they would monitor and attempt to control these unjust and exploitive interest rate situations in Canada? Will he explain his reluctance in this matter?
2312

June 20, 1980
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there are at present before the standing committee the clauses affecting this particular proposal. 1 do not intend to repeat in the House the discussions that are going on in the standing committee on the Bank Act. I did depart from that position a short time last week, but I do not think it is good practice for us to repeat in the House what is going on in the standing committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is nothing going on.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FORUM FOR YOUNG CANADIANS
Madam Speaker:: 1 would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in our gallery of members of the Forum for Young Canadians which is today celebrating its fifth anniversary. Members know that the Forum spends weeks in Ottawa to intensively study the political process. In the course of five years they have turned out 1,800 graduates. I thought hon. members would like to wish them well in their endeavours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns a matter of great importance to Canadian pediatricians, namely, the increasing use of unsafe rear-fender bicycle seats for children which is resulting in serious injuries to tiny tots who are completely unprotected should the rider lose control of the bicycle or should the bicycle be rammed from behind. Has the minister's department carried out any testing of these rear-fender seats to assess their safety?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to note the hon. member's interest in this matter. He has already informed the officials of my department of the urgency of looking into this and if possible to set standards with a view to better protecting children who go bike riding with their parents. I find the hon. member's concerns to be founded and I can assure him that the officials of my department will immediately undertake studies aimed at better informing parents who take their children with them on bicycle rides of the dangers inherent in such excursions and that they will try to set minimum standards of protection for children.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Far be it from me to suggest unwarranted interference by the government in people's lives, but I really do believe the state in this case has a role to play in the bicycles of the nation.
For the sake of our children, I wonder whether the minister would suggest to his departmental officials the possibility of making mandatory the fitting of guards to prevent children's legs being caught in the spokes, and the wearing of little helmets, if necessary, to reduce the likelihood of head injury to these children.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, 1 share the hon. member's concerns and 1 can assure him that I will transmit his proposals and recommendations to the officials of my department who will certainly follow them up.


FISHERIES ACT
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and is related to this week's ruling by Mr. Justice Martland that section 33(3) of the federal Fisheries Act is unconstitutional.
What steps has the minister taken in response to this Supreme Court ruling? How will the minister prevent the dumping of slash, stumps and other debris into streams frequented by fish while at the same time respecting the provincial right to make laws relating to logging operations in adjacent watershed areas?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I have not received a formal analysis of the consequences of the decision of the Supreme Court in this matter which was given this week. I might say that the provision which was rejected was voted unanimously by Parliament; it may have been drafted a little too broadly.
1 will await the advice of the lawyers. Meanwhile, there are other provisions of the Fisheries Act which allow us to prevent serious damage to the habitat and to the environment, and we shall continue to use those powers. In my view, this situation probably underlines the need for a more rational approach to the competitive use of resources such as water-a policy I have advocated all along.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I should like to pursue further the final remarks of the minister. It seems to me that by now the hon. gentleman will have fully reviewed the reasons for judgment and will have consulted with his colleague, the Minister of Justice, who is sitting to his left. So will the minister tell us whether the problem with section 33(3) arises from the principle of the powers as set out therein, apparently in conflict with section 92
June 20, 1980

of the British North America Act, or whether it arises merely because of the choice of phraseology in section 33(3) which, as the minister has indicated, appears to give very broad powers to federal fisheries officers without placing upon them the responsibility of proving the likelihood of damage to fish habitat?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the presence of the Minister of Justice in his seat very close to me at the moment was about to allow me to have a word with him concerning this question.
I have asked the legal officers of my department about it but, of course, I will want to hear the views of the Minister of Justice and have his co-operation also in his other role as minister responsible for federal-provincial relations.
I do not have the advantage enjoyed by the hon. member, that of having a nicely-written question before him, but I can tell him that my interest in this matter is no less than his.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In January of this year I received assurances from officials of Environment Canada in Regina that our consular officials would be on site to monitor engineering studies and land acquisitions in the New Rockford section of Garrison. Has the hon. gentleman been assured by his consular officials that there is no Garrison diversion construction under way which will affect Canadian waters?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have not yet received such an assurance from my officials, but 1 can tell the House that further to our discussion of this matter in the House yesterday, our ambassador in Washington sent a letter to the subcommittee dealing with the appropriations rider and enclosed a copy of our tone to the United States government.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The minister said he has received no assurance from his officials. Can he tell the House whether there are any of our consular officials down in North Dakota now, monitoring construction work? I should also like to point out that Governor Link, of North Dakota, a Garrison supporter and friend of President Carter, has been calling for more funding for the project. Would the minister comment on the likelihood that the U.S. elections are coming into play on the Garrison issue?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I would not want to comment on the U.S. elections, but obviously that is a factor. I will have to get the information the hon. member asks for and report to him.
Oral Questions


ILLEGAL BOARDING OF &quot;RAINBOW WARRIOR&quot; AND ARREST OF CANADIANS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of press reports of the apprehension of Greenpeace anti-whaling vessel Rainbow Warrior in international waters yesterday and the holding at gunpoint and interrogation of a CBC cameraman and reporter, I should like to ask the minister whether he has yet received official reports of this incident and whether he has protested the illegal boarding of the vessel and the arrest of Canadian citizens.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that the report is true. According to the information we have received, the Greenpeace ship has been taken to the Spanish harbour of El Farol. We are endeavouring to get further information. It is too soon to make a protest, but if a protest is appropriate we will make it in due course.


Mark Willson Rose: Since this latest incident involving a Greenpeace vessel amounts to piracy on the high seas and is reminiscent of Captain David McTaggart's experience during the French nuclear tests when his vessel, Greenpeace II, was boarded by the French navy in the South Pacific about ten years ago, and bearing in mind the length of time it took Canada to finally espouse his cause, as was done belatedly, will the minister on this occasion, if the facts warrant it, protest immediately in the strongest terms to the government of Spain about this very grave matter?


Erik Nielsen: Ole!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I can assure the hon. member we shall certainly do what the facts warrant. It is not yet clear to us whether the seizure was made on the high seas; it may well have been made in Spanish territorial waters.


NEGOTIATIONS ON REDUCTION OF CRUDE OIL IMPORTS
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last year, in Tokyo, Canada committed itself to take all necessary steps to limit its oil import level to 150,000 barrels a day. Next week, in Venice, will the Prime Minister be able to announce that Canada has met its commitment?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Shefford and the House that Canada has fulfilled its commitment in 1979 and that, on the basis of currently available figures, we expect to be able to adhere to it again in 1980.

June 20, 1980
Oral Questions


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Small Business. It relates to the metric changeover issue in the agricultural sector and particularly the mandatory aspects relating to cattle producers, who are deeply concerned about the impact of this metric policy as it affects our beef and live cattle trade with the United States.
In view of the fact that all such export cattle trade begins at our country auction markets, and that those are sales on a weight basis, will the minister give serious consideration to allowing the cattle sector to remain on a voluntary basis with respect to the metric conversion policy?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Madam Speaker, as far as I know, the cattle sector of the agricultural community is still on a voluntary basis.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Madam Speaker, that of course applies to most of the sectors which have not changed yet. I am sure the minister is aware of that. Would the minister responsible for metric conversion support an approach to the United States which would establish an agreement or treaty which would allow for metric conversion only when both countries agree to proceed together?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, 1 feel that the hon. member's suggestion is excellent. It is essential that our effort to convert to the metric system be as much as possible in line with what is being done in the United States.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I sense that the hon. member is just about to ask his question. I think he should do
so.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, I am Madam Speaker. There is a tremendous chance for the conservation of gas and oil through the use of dogs. Will the government consider giving some help to the development of the adequacy of dogs to detect gas and oil leaks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, now that I have the assurance that there will not be a supplementary, I would say that is a "doggone" good question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It relates to Tuesday's Supreme Court decision which ruled that parts of the Fisheries Act regarding the protection of fish habitat were ultra vires, a decision based on infringement of provincial rights.
In light of the threat which now exists to fish habitat in estuarine areas of British Columbia which are under federal jurisdiction, I ask the minister what plans he has to protect fish habitat in estuaries.
* *
*


USE OF DOGS TO DETECT OIL AND GAS LEAKS
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am going to say a few words and then excuse myself from asking a supplementary question.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the previous questioner on this issue, the change in the legislation was brought about some three years ago. It was felt that it strengthened the Fisheries Act and that it added more clout to it. But I have to tell the hon. member that even with that section being taken away, the Fisheries Act still remains a very powerful piece of legislation to protect fish. It was really the other provisions which were used by my predecessors to effect some rather important decisions. There are other sections which are open to us.


Madam Speaker:: That just will not do. The idea is to ask brief questions at all times.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We have some 200,000 miles of pipelines and we are losing a lot of gas and oil through leaks. Dogs from the Avery Kennels in Alberta were able to detect ten leaks in 30 miles of gas line after a helicopter and electronic flamepacks failed to find these leaks. I think there is a tremendous chance for conservation of gas and oil.
We are now waiting to see if the section being redrafted could, in fact, be reintroduced in this House. I am getting legal advice from my colleague and from the legal people in my own department. But I assure the hon. member, and, through him, the fishermen of this country, that the habitat of fish is not totally threatened. Perhaps the protection is a little weaker than the protection we had, but we will use the other provisions and await the judgment of the courts on those items which can be used.
June 20, 1980


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, in light of strong evidence indicating that the Cowichan estuary task force will recommend increased industrialization of the Cowichan estuary, will the minister table the submissions and recommendations his department made to the Cowichan estuary task force, and will he act now to reassure the people of Vancouver Island that he will protect the Cowichan estuary from further degradation by industry?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I will certainly make available any documentation I have on this issue, as we did in the case of the McGregor diversion, where the evidence produced by the experts from my department and the Department of the Environment was so impressive that the project was abandoned without further hearing because it was seen that the negative aspects were absolutely obvious and overwhelming.
I have not yet seen the final report on the Cowichan estuary. I hope to discuss this matter when I am out in British Columbia next week, but obviously I will make public any document we have which supports the case of good conservation and good habitat protection.


LAY-OFFS IN CRAB INDUSTRY IN QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION BY MINISTER
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister is doubtless aware that the Quebec and maritimes crab industry is going through a severe crisis and that some plants will have to close down within coming weeks. Can he tell the House whether he will intervene personally to prevent lays-offs in processing plants and ensure an adequate income to the crab fishermen of eastern Canada?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am aware of two problems at this time which are perhaps less dramatic than the hon. member seems to indicate. In some cases the quality of crabs known as white crabs poses a problem to the rate of production of some plants. There is also a slight softening of the American market as a result of the slow-down in the American economy. At this point, the situation does not seem to be as critical as some newspapers would have us believe. In any event, the Fisheries Prices Support Board is now examining that file and 1 shall report to the hon. member in due course.


TAX INCENTIVES FOR USE OF COAL IN POWER GENERATION
William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, my question is for an attractive minister, and it is not the Minister of Finance. My question is for the Minister of State for Mines.
Oral Questions
Canada now imports 20 million tons of coal annually-that is, coal and metallurgical coke-worth approximately $1 billion every year. This is having severe and adverse effects on Canada's balance of payments. The minister has said that she was evolving new policy in connection with the mining industry. When will the minister and the government evolve and announce a package of tax incentives to increase the competitiveness of using Canadian coal in Canada, and particularly central Canada, for power generation and for Canadian industry in total and, therefore, consume less oil in central Canada?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State, Mines):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He appreciates, of course, the fact that this is a very complex issue and that it will take a considerable amount of time to complete the package. I assure him, however, that we are working in our department on this very issue and we hope within approximately six to seven months to have some idea as to the direction in which we are heading.
I should like to add that we are meeting with members of the mining industry next Tuesday and expect to have considerable input from the industry then.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to assure the minister that it is not totally complicated. Indeed, all it takes is political will and courage to do something about the situation in Canada with respect to the importation of coal.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Right on.


William J. Yurko: When will the minister prevail upon her fellow ministers in government to initiate and/or increase the transportation subsidies to increase the use of Canadian coal from eastern and western Canada for power generation in the province of Ontario? Can she give us an idea when she will tackle this particular problem?


Judith A. Erola: Again, Madam Speaker, this is a very complex issue because, as the hon. member knows, the burning of coal has the side effect of acid rain, which is something we must all consider very carefully. Indeed, we must question whether the increase of coal-burning generating stations is advisable in this particular region. So that is also under question.

June 20, 1980
Oral Questions ENERGY


NEWFOUNDLAND-TRANSMISSION OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER THROUGH QUEBEC
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, earlier this week the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources met with his Quebec counterpart. My question is for the Prime Minister and it is a "doggone" good one.
Following that meeting, the Minister of Energy indicated that he favoured a reopening of talks between Newfoundland and Quebec with respect to the transmission of Labrador hydroelectric power through Quebec. Yet the government of Quebec placed conditions on the reopening of these talks which are totally unacceptable to Newfoundland. Therefore, my question to the Prime Minister is this: is the government prepared to recognize the constitutional rights of the province of Newfoundland to transmit its hydroelectric power through the province of Quebec, just as western provinces have the right to transmit their gas energy by pipeline through the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it has always appeared to me that such a right existed, that it is part of the so-called trade and commerce powers of Canada being one economic country, and that provinces cannot be inhibited from selling their produce in other parts of the country. That is the constitutional doctrine in which 1 have always believed. But for greater assurance, the hon. member is aware we are proposing amendments to the constitution which will guarantee, as a basic right in a declaration of rights, the free movement of not only people and ideas across provincial borders but goods and services. So this is the constitution as we think it is now, but for greater assurance we are hoping it can be amended in the way he indicated.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear the reassurance of the Prime Minister that the present constitution provides the federal government with the power to allow for the building of a corridor through a province for the transmission of hydroelectric power to another province. Therefore, I have a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that talks have broken off, why has the Prime Minister not acted upon the formal requests of the Premier of Newfoundland on April 16, advising him that these talks have broken off, to exercise his authority on behalf of the province of Newfoundland to provide for a corridor through Quebec for the transmission and potential sale of Newfoundland hydroelectric power to customers in New York and Ontario?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would think that such action would only be possible if Newfoundland had the contract for the sale of its power to some other part of the country, and if Quebec were imposing unreasonable charges in the transfer of that power in the sense that it would constitute some kind of tariff or barrier which would be constitutionally inadmissible. I have had no evidence as yet of either of those two conditions being met.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration in his capacity as spokesman for the Minister of Transport who is not in the House today.
I am sure the minister is aware of the actions taken by the M inister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board authorizing the issuance of permits for the importation of feed grains. This has caused some concern to the Western Barley Growers' Association because of the fact the prevailing Canadian Wheat Board initial price for barley is $1.95 per bushel, while the market price is in the order of $3 per bushel, thus discouraging deliveries to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Would the minister undertake to recommend to his colleague in the other place the immediate upward adjustment of the initial price of barley, to encourage deliveries from farms and barley held in storage into the system so that these supplies could be met? My understanding is that statistics of the Canadian Wheat Board reveal that there are some 2.5 million tonnes of barley on the farms. This would help alleviate the situation and the hard-pressed financial position of producers.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would be very pleased to communicate that message to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. As the hon. member knows, at the present moment the decision by the Wheat Board is to permit barley to be sold out of country elevators at going competitive prices. If there is further upward adjustment, that will be considered by the Wheat Board, and I will make sure the minister responsible knows about it right away.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister is well aware that many farmers wish to sell to the Canadian Wheat Board. Because of the low initial price vis-a-vis the actual current prevailing price, it discourages these producers from moving. Would the minister impress upon his colleague in the other place the importance of that, particularly now, so that our supplies are in order?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member probably knows, this is a matter of ongoing concern to the government. A cabinet committee is meeting constantly to revise and adjust its programs relating to drought conditions in western Canada. At the first opportunity at that meeting I will transmit his concerns to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board.
June 20, 1980


TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE-TRANSPORTATION OF ALASKAN CRUDE OIL-ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In the talks and correspondence with Trans Mountain Pipe Line officials regarding the use of their facilities to transport Alaskan crude, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what environmental safeguards have been discussed in relation to this project.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any recent talks. I have not been informed of any recent exchanges on this particular point. As the hon. member knows, this government has always expressed the hope that Trans Mountain would not be the preferred route, but a parallel line along the Foothills line for gas would be built to transmit oil from Prudhoe Bay to the United States. That is still our preferred course.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Prime Minister seems clueless about it now, but he certainly talked a lot about it during the campaign. For my constituency, this proposal would be an improvement over some of the other proposals that have been talked about, because it would get ships out of the inland waters. It would mean that not only tankers but supertankers would come down the coast. In light of what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign, what is the level of commitment of the Liberal government toward stopping the tankers coming down the west coast?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is agreeing with the position we took during the campaign. It was to the effect that the all overland route should have been pushed by the Conservative government as it was pushed by our government.


Erik Nielsen: Which is what we did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is still our hope that this will be the route which will succeed. I am just informing the hon. member that I am not aware of any current information on that matter. I would have to defer to the minister.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES CONTRACTS WITH SPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I should like to continue my questioning of Tuesday concerning the Space Research Corporation with the Minister of Supply and Services and the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development. The Space Research Corporation is the body that is pushing its wares at the secret armaments conference being hosted by the Canadi-
Oral Questions
an Government next week at the Government Conference Centre.
I would like to ask the Minister of Supply and Services, since he said he would look into the matter for me when he replied on Tuesday, whether there are any government agencies or departments currently holding contracts with Space Research Corporation.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, there are indeed a number of agencies which are dealing with Space Research. Canadian Arsenals Limited, which is responsible to Parliament through me, has been dealing with Space Research in the past. I might indicate to the hon. lady that I have already asked for the preparation of a written reply for her, which should be coming to her within two or three days. Because the list is quite detailed, I think it would be more informative through that means of communication.


Madam Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for a short supplementary question.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I would say to the minister that I hope the list will be available soon, as the secret conference begins on Tuesday.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Pauline Jewett: The Conservatives are not concerned about Space Research Corporation, but we are.


An hon. Member:: You are a day late. We asked about it yesterday.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Pauline Jewett: would like to ask the Minister of Justice, if I may, why it is that the report of the RCMP, long since done, concerning Space Research Corporation which as the minister knows has been convicted in the United States of illegally shipping arms to South Africa, has not been produced. I would ask whether he intends to keep this report of the RCMP secret and, if not, when he will release it.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, according to the information 1 was able to obtain in that regard, the case of that company is now before Canadian courts. It therefore would not be in the interest of justice to table, at this time, the police report which led to legal proceedings.

June 20, 1980
Introduction of Bills


Mr. Cullen:: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but perhaps I will ask it on Monday.


DISBURSING OF FUNDS FROM LOTTERIES
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of sport. I think he is still the minister of sport, though we have not seen him here for about a week. It is my understanding that the sport department is virtually bankrupt, and the cultural and artistic communities seriously require money for symphonies and little theatres.
Would the minister advise the House whether he is going to deposit the provincial government cheque he has received from the lotteries and disburse the funds accordingly? Since he is going to be getting another cheque on June 29 which will amount to $12 million, plus the incremental $250,000, will he please see that these communities get the moneys accordingly?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker,
1 thank the hon. member for his keen interest in the financial welfare of sport in this country, though 1 think sport would have been in a much better situation financially if he had not become party to the most disastrous piece of negotiation since the Brooklyn Bridge was sold.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to remind the hon. member that Loto Canada was netting $80 million a year, and he became a party with two other ministers in signing an incomplete agreement that has no time limit at all-so it may not be an agreement at all-whereby he gave away Loto Canada to the provinces and in return we received $24 million. That is a great piece of bargaining. 1 would say! If we are in any difficulty in relation to the flow of cash at the moment-


An hon. Member:: You cut it all off.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -in supporting athletic events in this country, then I say the responsibility lies very close to the hon. gentleman who is asking the questions.


An hon. Member:: Of the $24 million, you haven't spent a nickel. You cut everybody off and that is giving them concern.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-607, to amend the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act (definition of amateur sport and fitness).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Kenneth Robinson: Madam Speaker, the present act and regulations thereunder unduly restrict governmental encouragement of fitness and amateur sport in Canada to athletic activity, which connotes physical exertion as opposed to mental skill. Activities combining mental skill with a degree of physical effort should be included within the ambit of the act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally arc indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 155, 208, 255, 771,819, 820, 894 and 896.
I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware that Major General Donald McNichol. Commander of Canada's Air Defence Group, was quoted in news reports on Thursday, March 27, 1980 to the effect, that a war with the Soviet Union seems imminent and, if so, does this represent the policy approach of the government and, if not, does the government intend to ask Major General McNichol for full information illustrating his conclusion?
2.	Is the government aware that Major General McNichol was quoted in part as saying that "our air defence system is at least 25 years old. We're working in the 1980s with 1950 equipment" and, if so, does such a statement represent government policy and what steps will the government take to update equipment for the Armed Forces?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. The government is aware of the news reports which quoted Major General McNichol. Neither the government nor the Department of National Defence believe that a war with the Soviet Union is imminent. The
June 20, 1980

matter has been discussed with Major General McNichol and the Minister of National Defence considers it to be closed.
2.	The quote "our air defence system is at least 25 years old. We're working in the 1980s with 1950 equipment" is inaccurate and misleading. The continental air defence system is composed of various sub-systems and components: e.g. radars for warning, surveillance and control purposes; interceptor aircraft; and command, control and communications facilities. Some of the equipment is relatively modern and efficient, but some is indeed more than 25 years old. The Department of National Defence will continue to implement the government's policy of replacing and modernizing the equipment of the Canadian forces to maintain and, where necessary, enhance capabilities needed for national and collective defence, and will, in accordance with this policy, develop jointly with the United States appropriate programs for modernization of the North American Air Defence System.


Mr. Herbert: What was the total amount recovered by (a) Canadian National Railways (b) Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for the sale of surplus equipment in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976 (iii) 1977?


David Michael Collenette: 1 am informed by the Departments of Supply and Services and Transport as follows; in so far as Canadian National Railways is concerned:
(a)	The best estimate of these amounts is:
(i)	$13,313,622
(ii)	$14,647,961
(iii)	$15,755,938
The major cash recoveries in this respect are from sales of ferrous and non-ferrous scrap generated at our reclamation yards through the dismantling of retired property and equipment, and from unusable components scrapped at maintenance shops. These sales, together with the proceeds of sales or retired rolling stock, aggregate the following amounts in the years in question:
$1 1,913,622 in 1975 $13,247,961 in 1976 $14,355,938 in 1977
Of these latter amounts about 90 per cent is derived from sales of scrap. Those figures do not include proceeds from other miscellaneous sales, such as retired highway vehicles, scrap office furniture and equipment, waste paper, other properties, etc. System summaries of data relative to such sales are not readily available; however, on the basis of an analysis of a representative sample of such data, it appears that the addition of about $1.4 million per year should be made on those accounts.
In so far as the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned:
Order Paper Questions
(b)	The following amounts include aircraft, ships, automotive vehicles, spares, major equipment and sundry merchandise.
(0	$ 7,259,069
(ii)	$ 8,531,494
(iii)	$10,789,903


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the government appoint Mr. Ralph Stewart as Consul General in Atlanta and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the term of the appointment (c) what is the salary of the position?
2.	What was the cost of maintaining the Consul General's office in Atlanta in each of the past five years?
3.	What are the principal functions performed by the personnel in the office?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Mr. Stewart was appointed as consul general in Atlanta by the previous government:
(a)	September 6, 1979;
(b)	Undefined period;
(c)	The salary of the position is within the range of $42,800 to $49,800.
2. In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned the cost of maintaining the consul general's office in Atlanta over the past five years is as follows:
Fiscal Year	Cost
1977-78
1975-76
$1,402,839*
562,365
496,753
426,016
369,955
*Figure includes purchase of properties to house consul general and 5 other Canada-based employees at a cost of $731,170.
3.	The 30 personnel of the consulate general in Atlanta are responsible for implementing the Canadian Government's programs in the fields of: trade and industrial development; tourism; consular affairs, and general relations in a territory comprised of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the states of Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississipi and Florida. They are also responsible for implementing the immigration program in all of the above territory except for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.


Mr. Thomson: 1.	In the Fertilizer Combines Hearing carried out in 1979, how many manufacturers were involved in the accusation of price fixing?
2.	How many days did the (a) preliminary hearings (b) trial take and, what was the total cost in each case?

June 20, 1980
Order Paper Questions
3.	What basis did the Combines Branch have for the accusation of price fixing?
4.	On whose advice and on whose authority does the Combines branch bring a case to trial, such as the Fertilizer Combines Hearing of 1979?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: 1. Six manufacturers of fertilizer were charged. In addition, there were 12 unindicted co-conspirators named in the charge.
2.	(a) 48 days, $180,705.57 (incl. necessary preparation) (b) 150 days, $522,537.60 (incl. necessary preparation).
3.	The director of investigation and research conducted a lengthy and detailed inquiry under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act resulting in the seizure of over 15,000 documents, the taking of sworn oral evidence from employees and officers of the firms involved, and the securing of market share and production data in the form of sworn returns of information from the manufacturers. Based on an analysis of all of the evidence, the director referred the inquiry to the Attorney General of Canada, pursuant to section 15(1) of the Combines Investigation Act, with a recommendation that a prosecution be undertaken.
4.	Once the results of an inquiry have been referred to the Attorney General by the director of investigation and research, it is the Attorney General's responsibility to independently assess all of the evidence and, having done so, to make a decision as to whether or not a prosecution may be warranted. The result of the Attorney General's review in the fertilizer case was a decision to prosecute. All cases referred to the Attorney General by the director follow this pattern.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1975, what amount was spent on studies related to marijuana by the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: None.


Mr. Howie: Since April I, 1975, what amount was spent on studies related to marijuana by the Department of Employment and Immigration?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: None.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What is a list of all loans made from the Canada Pension Plan Fund in each of the past five years (b) what is the total for the five years (c) in each case, to whom was the loan made, what was the interest rate and how did it differ from the average interest rate in existence at the time?
2.	Is it, or has it been, the policy of the government to allow borrowing from the fund at interest rates much lower than in the private market?
Hon. Pierre Bussieres, Minister of State (Finance): 1. The
information sought by the hon. member is equally accessible to him, being reported annually in the Public Accounts of Canada. Various investment dealers provide data on market yields of federal, provincial and corporate bonds.
2. Section 113 (2) of the Canada Pension Plan prescribes the interest to be paid on funds loaned from the Canada Pension Plan. The amount of interest received and the weighted average rates are reported in the Public Accounts of Canada.


Mr. Howie: Was a subsidy paid to air carriers operating in the Atlantic provinces in the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79 (c) 1979-80 and, if so, in what amount and to whom?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: (a)	yes Eastern Provincial Airways (1963) Limited


[Stage Direction]
(b)	yes Eastern Provincial Airways (1963) Limited
[Stage Direction]
(c)	yes Eastern Provincial Airways (1963) Limited
[Stage Direction]
Note: Included in the above figures are amounts pertaining to services between Iles-de-la-Madeleine, P.Q. and Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Yvon Pinard (for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) moved: that Bill C-35, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege and the honour to represent the minister in the introduction of Bill C-35 this afternoon for second reading. As the parliamentary secretary, I wish to indicate in respect of Bill C-35 that I will be brief in my remarks as I know full well
June 20, 1980

how pressed we are for time in this House. I also know that the act before us is not strange to most hon. members. It, therefore, needs little introduction on my part. However, I would like to explain why the government is seeking an extension to the Regional Development Incentives Act at this time.
While I suggested that most of you are familiar with the program of incentives to industry of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, applicable in the slow growth regions of Canada, I am equally sure many of you are less familiar with the fact that there is an expiry date to the legislation covering this program. Under the current legislation, assistance is limited to projects which go into commercial production by December 31, 1981. The fact that the current legislation will expire in 18 months, unless we do something about it, is already having an adverse effect on DREE's industrial incentives program.
Large scale projects take time to develop, time to plan, as they involve millions of dollars, time to build facilities and time to reach commercial production. We are running out of time. DREE officials already are having to reject applications because proposed projects will not come into production by the end of the year 1981. I need not tell any of my colleagues in this House what this means to those parts of Canada where this development would have taken place. These areas of our country need the kind of industrial development this program has brought about. That is why you are being asked to extend the Regional Development Incentives Act for five years.
In the past ten years the industrial incentives program has generated more than $2 billion of development by private enterprise, and is expected to generate another $2 billion from projects still under way. Some $4.3 billion worth of development has been brought about, or will occur, through $800 million in federal government incentives.
With these incentives the Government of Canada has brought investment dollars to those parts of the country where they are really needed. And, probably more importantly, we have created jobs with these incentives. Almost 150,000 actual or projected long-term jobs can be attributed to projects supported by DREE's industrial incentives program. That is to say nothing of the many thousand of jobs indirectly created or maintained which, while they cannot be calculated, are nevertheless equally real.
This legislation cannot wait until the comprehensive review of DREE is completed and a legislative package can be placed before the House for consideration. As I said earlier, we cannot wait until then. The new DREE legislation may be introduced some time in the autumn of this year. I can tell hon. members that the minister and the ministry are working diligently to fine tune with precision the new legislative program and that we will all have an opportunity to debate the proposed legislation for the over-all operation of DREE when it is introduced.
However, with respect to Bill C-35, we have a successful program with proven effectiveness, but unless we act swiftly, it
Regional Development Incentives Act will quickly cease to be so. The reason that it is necessary to extend the act for five years can be briefly explained by illustrating some of the requirements. As I mentioned earlier, the planning of a project, including a feasibility analysis and location studies, can take one year or two. Construction of the plants and installation of the equipment can take another 18 months to two years. Add to this a further three or four months of running until commercial production is reached, and I am sure that all hon. members will agree with the reasons for which we are requesting an extension of time.
The passage of the amendment to the Regional Development Incentives Act which is before us at this time will permit the continuation of a program that is a powerful weapon in the government's arsenal for the fight against regional disparity. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I know from my work with the department how effective the regional development incentives program has been in promoting regional development in those parts of Canada where it is most needed.
As a representative in this House of one of these areas, I know from first-hand experience the impact this program can and does have. I have seen that it does help to create job opportunities and encourage capital investment. In my province of New Brunswick alone, more than 10,000 jobs can be directly related to RDIP assisted projects. In addition, the program has generated investments of almost $290 million, investments by private industry which can help maintain the viability of our communities. This last point is an important one to me: this program has meant that there are both jobs and economic development where they are needed, at home. People do not have to go down the road to some industrial metropolis to find work.
Regional development and the reduction of economic and social disparities are the goals of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Through the regional development incentives program and the cost-shared, federal-provincial activities under the general development agreement, as well as other programs, DREE is working to meet these objectives.
The regional development incentives program is, as I have said, but one of the instruments at DREE's disposal for fighting regional disparities. However, it is an important one, for through it the department can work directly with private enterprise and promote development which can have meaningful results for the millions of Canadians living in those parts of the country that are designated as requiring special assistance-meaningful results such as those I mentioned when I spoke of the program's achievements in my home province of New Brunswick.
These kinds of results can be seen all across our country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In the Atlantic region more than 29,000 jobs are expected from the RDIP assisted projects with investments totalling almost $790 million. In Quebec
85,000	jobs and investments of $2.3 billion have been created. In northern Ontario, almost 12,000 jobs have been created with investments of $468 million. In western Canada and the north there have been almost 25,000 jobs created with invest-

June 20, 1980
Regional Development Incentives Act
ments of S815 million. Altogether, more than 150,000 jobs have been created and $4.3 billion has been invested by private industry. These are jobs and industrial development in those parts of Canada where it really matters, its regions. Strengthened regions mean a stronger Canada.
Too often we forget that regional development programs must be seen in broad terms. The whole country benefits when Canada is made stronger through its regions. It is to this strengthening of Canada's economic base in those areas where it is needed that DREE's industrial incentives program is dedicated. Together, they form DREE's regional development incentives program, a program which has, in my opinion, a remarkable success record. Some 90 per cent of the projects undertaken through the program are successfully completed. To me this shows a good use of taxpayers' dollars.
In the past ten years some 6,000 projects have been assisted under the regional development incentives program. These are projects in a wide variety of industrial sectors, ranging from the food industry to textiles and clothing, from fish processing to metal fabricating, and from the chemical industry to the furniture industry. More than 80 per cent of these projects have been with small businesses, businesses that needed financial assistance in the form most often provided by the program. These grants provided funding when it was most needed and helped many worth-while projects get off the ground.
In many cases these projects did more than merely get off the ground; they achieved results that were even better than first projected. 1 have already indicated that more than 80 per cent of the projects have involved investment costs of less than $2 million or 100 jobs. These are projects which are approved locally and which are often initiated by local entrepreneurs. In western Canada one will find that this program has had the same effect. 1 think that all hon. members will clearly agree that this is a program which is attuned to regional needs and designated to attract successful and viable industries, that it is administered by people who are good judges of the kinds of projects which will be successful.
However, I am sure that these people will be the first ones to agree the DREE cannot rest on its present performance to date, albeit a department which is celebrating its tenth anniversary as a department this year. In order for the regional development incentives program to be as effective as possible, it will be necessary for DREE to work even more closely with industry and tailor its programs to those industries which have not been attracted by the program to Canada's slow growth regions. Increased flexibility and a more active approach will, no doubt, be essential considerations for the minister as he puts together the broader department-wide legislative package he proposes to place before the House at a later date.
As hon. members know, the minister recently tabled regional objective working papers in the standing committee and, indeed, has commenced in a very serious way the preparation of the broader legislative package to introduce to this House which I referred to earlier. However, today we must consider the amendment to the Regional Development Incentives Act which is before us. As it has been said, we cannot wait for the
introduction of the proposed legislation. In order for the regional development incentives program to continue its contribution to reducing regional disparities, we must act now.
I would like to point out to the House a number of factors which should permit DREE's industrial incentive program to be especially effective at this time. These are: one, the increased climate of stability in Canada; two, the edge in foreign markets provided by the value of the Canadian dollar; three, the availability of Canada's energy and natural resources; four, the improvement of Canada's labour force in terms of its skills and expertise; and five, the spill-over expected from major undertakings in the 1980s in various parts of Canada in energy and resource development, aircraft and electronics, and so on.
Furthermore, given the construction periods required, some of the projects funded under RD1A will be coming into commercial production just in time to take advantage of the economic recovery and growth in demand forecast for the world market. As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, Canada has some very attractive opportunities to put before entrepreneurs from both inside our borders and beyond. Mr. Speaker, I would therefore ask this House to give its wholehearted support to Bill C-35. The speedy passage of this amendment will permit the government to continue a program which is making a very real and worth-while contribution to the reduction of economic and social disparities in Canada today.
With the help of each and every member of this assembly- each working as a minister of regional economic expansion in his or her own constituency-we will be able to make this country of ours a better place to live and a better place to work, no matter what part of Canada we call home.
I should like to conclude by expressing our appreciation for the co-operation of members in committee as well as their consideration of and support for passage of this amendment, the much needed time increase set out in Bill C-35.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the distinct pleasure, albeit unexpected, of responding to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Harquail) in regard to the passage of this bill. I should like to say to the parliamentary secretary at the outset that, as far as we are concerned, we have no objection to co-operating so that the legislation may be handled expeditiously.
I think we should take this opportunity, however, to reflect briefly on some of the things that must be done fairly soon in more comprehensive legislation in order to revise the concept of regional economic development in this country.
As the parliamentary secretary said, the department was created about ten years ago. Sad to say, in the intervening decade, although the department has accomplished much, there is a great deal it has not been able to do. It would appear that it has gone from what was a very high priority and
June 20, 1980

expansionary type of department to what is now becoming an "also ran".
I think the minister appreciates, as I did, that there is an enormous amount of failure in co-ordination between this department, which is by its nature horizontal and crosses the efforts of many line departments, and other departments which could do so much to help DREE in a common purpose to develop parts of this country that have steadily been falling farther behind.
When the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was created, a greater proportion of its effort and funding was targeted toward Atlantic Canada than is the case today. As I understand it, about 53 per cent of its budget was allocated to Atlantic Canada ten years ago; today about 37 per cent of its budget is targeted to that region.
Another phenomenon that has occurred, of course, is that in the western part of our country an enormous expansion has been taking place in some provinces. This is something about which we all rejoice, but it has made it very difficult to continue to target on the traditional role of DREE, which has been one of equalizing the standard of living.
When a province like Alberta makes such enormous progress that it becomes, in effect, a miniature Saudi Arabia in our country, it is then difficult to say realistically that Nova Scotia, for example, will have a comparable standard of living through the efforts of a department such as DREE. What DREE must do is try to lessen the tremendous dependence of parts of this country on transfer and equalization payments.
The phenomenon is that as the DREE budget has fallen proportionately, and therefore so has its capacity to develop the economies of the regions of the country that need their economies developed, there has been a great increase in transfer payments. In other words, there has been a far greater emphasis by this government on distributing the wealth of the country than there has been on trying to create the wealth which must be distributed.
I mentioned that factor in a speech I made not long ago so I do not want to chew my cabbage twice, as they say. But I do want to emphasize, however, that there should be greater co-operation between line departments and DREE if we are to accomplish anything; I am sure that the parliamentary secretary and the minister would agree with this. We tried to promote this approach in our government and I believe that the present minister intends to continue the thrust.
I want to repeat the point that I made earlier but make it more specific. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is one of those line departments that is doing the least to expend its resources in a co-operative way-in Atlantic Canada, for example-to help DREE accomplish some of the things that all members of this House want to see done.
I have done some research since last week-and I stand to be corrected if my figures are not correct-which appears to show that through the enterprise development program, EDP, in fiscal 1979 the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce only allocated 0.66 per cent of its budget, an amount of
Regional Development Incentives Act $1.4 million, to promote industry in the Atlantic region. For 1980 this has been raised to about 5.3 per cent of its budget, or over $12 million. I hope that the minister will continue this trend with particular emphasis on IT and C.
I should like to share with the House an example of the lack of co-operation that is particularly noticeable to me because it occurred in my constituency. The Electrohome enterprise which took over a building in my constituency got into difficulty. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion very properly tried to recover a substantial amount of money, while at the same time the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, through the EDP, was trying to straighten out the company. One department concerned with promoting economic development was in conflict with another department that really had the same objective. They were fighting over who was going to get money and who was going to reorganize the company, when there should not have been a problem at all. As a matter of fact we were able to work out a satisfactory arrangement which, to the best of my knowledge, still exists.
Agriculture is another area of concern. I hope the minister will look into matters and see what can be done with the PFRA program in western Canada. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) is an expert on PFRA. At the Standing Committee on Regional Development in the last session of Parliament he and other members were designated to look into the question of whether PFRA should remain with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or whether it should come under the Department of Agriculture and, if this were the case, whether the program could be extended right across the country.
Atlantic Canada at one time had a similar program called the Maritimes Marshland Rehabilitation Act. I am sure the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) and other members from New Brunswick would remember very well the good work once done by that program, but somehow or other it was discontinued. While the problems in Atlantic Canada are different, generally having more emphasis on drainage and rehabilitation of marshland as opposed to relieving drought as in western Canada, help is nonetheless required.
I hope that when considering more comprehensive legislation-this is only an interim measure-the minister will continue this study and will consult the hon. member for Medicine Hat and others to see whether something can be done to utilize DREE or the Department of Agriculture, whichever is most appropriate, to extend the economic development stimulus into the area of agriculture as well.
One of the things that should be done in order to support DREE, apart from increasing its budget to some extent-not that we should give it more money than it can intelligently use, but there is certainly a need for an increased budget-would be to consider some fiscal and financial measures.
Again, I do not want to hearken back and say that we had the only answer. We thought we had something in our budget that was helpful to DREE, that is to say, a provision for a tax

June 20, 1980
Regional Development Incentives Act contract which could be used to supplement the existing DREE incentives. I still continue to believe that that is needed, and I hope the minister will continue to look at this option.
I suggest another thing that has to be done is to make more flexible the procedures involved for advancing money. It may well be under the changed economic circumstances that to withhold funds to the extent that they are now withheld from applicants, before they are finally paid upon reaching commercial production is no longer appropriate, and that there should be more front-end money advanced sooner, particularly to small prospective industries or industries which do not have the cash flow and are seriously impeded by the lack of working capital.
In addition, there should be a hard look taken at the kind of special grants that are given to large corporations. Some of them have worked out very well, such as the one to Michelin in Nova Scotia. Others have not. But it makes far more sense to me to allow large profitable enterprises who have cash flow and who are able to finance, by definition, their own expansion, to make funds available through tax concessions after the fact so that taxpayers only pay for what they get, rather than passing money out to large corporations in an attempt to induce them to do what in some cases they were about to do in any event.
There is quite a paradox involved in regional economic expansion. Sometimes the industries who receive grants will only line up to get the grants simply because they are there and because their competitors got them. This is why 1 believe that if more provision were made to make certain that corporations having undertaken marketing studies, and all of the other details they need, decide on their own to go ahead with these particular projects, then let them finance their expansions by means of income tax concessions, and do not induce them to line up just for the sake of getting the grants because their competitors happen to get them.
There are many improvements which the minister knows have to be negotiated and brought this House. One of the problems, however, is that in a bill such as this, as is the case with the Bank Act, the more we delay passage of legislation by putting forward suggestions and prospective amendments, the more we hinder some of the things that have to be done.
I am happy that the minister brought this bill in at this time, but I am not too happy that he saw fit to put a five-year period on the time he indicated that it should be extended. I would have thought it better to say a period of three years which would be, by definition, within the period that this Parliament would last, and which would in effect be an added incentive to go ahead and bring forward the kind of comprehensive legislation that we are assured will be brought forward. If this is not done, we will get into the situation in which we now find ourselves with respect to the Bank Act. It becomes an exercise in absurdity whereby we cannot seem to come to grips with doing something that has to be done within legislative timeframe and we have to keep on changing and extending measures. I sincerely hope that that will not happen with respect to the regional development legislation. This will be coming
forward I trust, according to the parliamentary secretary, in a reasonably short time. I hope he will be able to give us his undertaking, or a reasonable assurance, that this legislation, which 1 know the Department of Justice has been working on for some time, will come forward into the House in the fall so that we can go into much greater detail in considering and bringing in appropriate amendments as well as discussing it in committee.
In the meantime, through the parliamentary secretary I want to wish the minister every success in trying to impress upon his colleagues in the departments of Fisheries and Oceans, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Transport and many other departments that what he needs is not competition from them for the DREE budget. He does not need them to be making demands on him for funds to relocate rails or to build airports, which should be the responsibility of the Department of Transport. What he really needs is an indication from them that they are prepared to set aside some of their own budgets and work more closely with him. Therefore, when there is a project that requires joint effort by departments, they will be there contributing, not simply taking advantage of DREE's position to say that it is up to DREE, or let DREE do it. Nor do we want to hear it said that, while they have their own empires, after all, DREE is charged with economic development; that even if they do not have enough money, it is DREE's responsibility and let DREE do it.
The minister knows the problem. I hope that he will get the kind of co-operation and good will that accrued to me from my cabinet colleagues. On that basis I will watch with a great deal of interest and a lot of good will what is going on in this very important department.
I hope that in the not too distant future all members of this House will be able to join in a more detailed and extensive debate over this important aspect of developing our country.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say a few words in this debate. However, I want to say at the outset that I am not the critic for our party when it comes to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Our critic is the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), who is in western Canada today and has been doing a very good job of watching the department's activities over the last few months.
I was very happy to hear the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), the former minister in the Conservative government, say that he will oppose the five-year extension and that he would sooner see a three-year extension. Our critic, the hon. member for Churchill, has suggested a two-year extension, which is in the same ball park. This would put the incentive on this Parliament to come up with some major revisions to the act, rather than passing it on to some other Parliament five or more years down the road. I want to say that both parties on this side of the House support that intent. I hope the government will take that under advisement and perhaps amend the legislation when it is before the parliamentary committee relevant to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
June 20, 1980

At a time like this we should look at some of the successes and failures of DREE. I want to go back to 1968 when I was first elected to serve here. I think that since then, 12 years ago, we have seen possibly two major economic innovations by the government which sits across the way. One of them was PetroCan, the establishment of a publicly-owned oil company. The second structural innovation was the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which was established to alleviate some of the inequities in this country. I believe that to be very important.
Like other members in this House, I am very concerned about the future of Canada, about the constitutional talks that are now taking place and about future economic and social development plans. One thing that is imperative is that all regions of this country feel equal, that they have equal opportunities to develop and that one region will not be favoured over another. I think there should be co-operation among all the regions and that the basic philosophy of equality be supreme. In my opinion, this department can go a long way in trying to meet some of those objectives that we have as Canadians.
The particular act that we are talking about today, the Regional Development Incentives Act, is really the program that hands out forms of grants and loans and guarantees to business and to industry which is willing to establish, to expand or modernize facilities in certain designated regions of the country.
Let us take a look at that. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion was created some 11 years ago. Since its inception, the proportion of the national budget allocated to DREE has declined from 2.1 per cent in 1970-71 to 1.1 per cent in 1977-78. This is a drop of 52 per cent in the national budget in that seven-year period. The proportion of the department's budget in Atlantic Canada, the region that needs more assistance than any other, has dropped by 42 per cent in that same period of time. Not only has the budget gone down by 52 per cent over seven years, but with what little money is available, the amount in the Atlantic provinces has dropped by 42 per cent.
No wonder the minister got up in this House and did something I have never seen in my 12 years in Parliament. He made a public plea to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to Treasury Board and to other ministers of the cabinet to provide more money for his department because it does not have the funds it needs in order to alleviate some of the regional inequities that are so apparent today.
I want to look at some of those regional inequities. In many areas they have increased rather than lessened in the past ten years.

For instance, from 1968 to 1978, the four Atlantic provinces, which represent 10 per cent of the total Canadian population, benefited from only 6.1 per cent of new invest-
Regional Development Incentives Act ments in the country, and only 6.6 per cent of all new jobs. The rate of unemployment in the four Atlantic provinces is 37.5 per cent higher than the average rate for Canada. The same goes for the province of Quebec. Quebeckers represent 27 per cent of the Canadian population but, between 1968 and 1978, they got only 18.1 per cent of all new jobs in Canada and only 22 per cent of new investments. In Quebec, the unemployment rate is much higher than the average Canadian rate. The rate in Quebec is 34.4 per cent higher than the average for Canada.

As can be seen from some of those figures, there is still a tremendous amount of inequity in this country. In the last ten years, for example, the unemployment rate in Canada has increased by 72 per cent. However, in the Atlantic provinces it went up by 161 per cent. The cost of electricity in Nova Scotia is 50 per cent higher than the Canadian average. All of this has occurred despite the fact that we have a department that is supposed to be lessening the inequities between one region and another. Therefore, when looking at an act of this sort we have to question whether it and the department are doing all that can be done or whether there are some other tools we can use to lessen regional grievances in this country.
Statistics released by DREE at the standing committee this week showed that large DREE expenditures are creating proportionally fewer jobs than small expenditures. The hon. member from Nova Scotia who spoke for the Conservatives questioned the wisdom of some of the grants given to large corporations. I want to reinforce that assertion and the fear and concern that he has.
Projects with the largest approved capital costs create only marginally more jobs than those with the smallest approved capital costs. In 1978-79, 4,680 direct jobs were created with an expenditure of $21.5 million on the smallest approved capital cost projects. During the same period, 4,690 direct jobs were created with an expenditure of $72.3 million in the largest approved capital cost group. Therefore, only 10 more jobs were created by the larger companies despite the fact they received an extra $50.8 million.
This is the figure we should look at. This is the reason I do not want the act extended for another five years. My impression is that what is happening is not right. It is not creating enough jobs in the areas it should. When you spend three and a half times more money to create only ten more jobs, something is wrong.
There are a number of other items which should be looked at. When you see statistics like that, you wonder whether the Regional Development Incentives Act and the program that gives grants, and so on, to companies to establish in a certain area is in many ways a glorified Santa Claus handing out gifts and financial rewards to companies to locate in a particular area. It hands out a lot of carrots. Maybe it is the carrot act. Once the incentives are gone, the company is not going to expand. Perhaps the company will withdraw, move its plant elsewhere and expand because it is more profitable.

June 20, 1980
Regional Development Incentives Act
We cannot have a Department of Regional Economic Expansion in isolation. There are other government programs. We need structural changes in this country. For example, freight rates discriminate more in the Atlantic provinces than in southern Ontario. Therefore, it is more expensive to establish a plant in the Atlantic provinces. Even though you give large concessions and grants to people to establish an enterprise there, it still may not compensate for the freight rate inequities.
We have a tariff structure that has protected central Canada more than some other regions, such as the Atlantic provinces. As I said previously, energy costs are very high in the Atlantic provinces, much higher than the Canadian average. If the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is to really have an impact, there has to be an over-all, co-ordinated government policy or plan to ensure that the Atlantic provinces, parts of Quebec and other parts of the country that need DREE moneys do not get them in one hand while through other programs they are losing more than they receive from DREE.
1 think of the Export Development Corporation which we debate in this House from time to time. It gives out all kinds of money to Canadian corporations as insurance when they are investing or selling abroad in Africa, Asia or South America. It so happens that the majority of these companies are located in the wealthier areas of Canada which get money from the Export Development Corporation. That again tips the balance away from the effect that DREE is having in some of the lesser developed areas.
The minister in charge of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion needs more clout. He needs more power to plan the economy of this country to ensure that the have-not regions get their fair share and the have regions do not get as much as they do today.
These are some of the matters that concern me. I say to the parliamentary secretary and the minister that for these reasons we want to see this bill go to committee where we will have an opportunity to ask questions, get more information and try to persuade the minister and his officials to extend this bill by only two years instead of five.
Another idea I want to throw out today is that when the government are handing out tens of millions of dollars, and not just under DREE but under various government programs, it would be appropriate to take equity in the company for the amount we are investing in that company. If we are giving taxpayers' money to a private company, it seems appropriate to take a proportionate equity equivalent to the investment. Perhaps that can be considered by the minister as we go to committee stage and back to the House for third reading.
That is really all I want to say today. This is a very important department and it is doing some good work, but this is one of the programs of the department that we question. We question whether so much money should be given to the larger companies that are not creating as many jobs as smaller companies in proportion to the funds they receive. We also put questions to the government as a whole urging them to plan
their other departments so that they would be complementary instead of contradictory, and help the Department of Regional Economic Expansion instead of hinder it.
If we can bring the standard of living and the standard of development in the Atlantic provinces, in the north and in other regions up toward the national average or even above the national average, we would perhaps be doing more to unify the country in the years ahead than anything else the House could do.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-35, to extend the Regional Development Incentives Act for an additional five-year period. The parliamentary secretary has mentioned the number of jobs which have been created under this act in the last 10 years-some 150,000 across the country with an accompanying investment of roughly $3 billion. Those of us who were here when the original bill was passed and when the department was created have seen a number of successes and a number of disappointments in the department, and I believe the review which the minister is carrying out at the present time and the legislation he is proposing for later this year will be welcomed with a great deal of anticipation and interest, especially among those of us who come from slow-growth areas.
Certainly, the Regional Development Incentives Act, although not completely successful in all parts of the country in terms of diversifying and widening their economies, has been a very constructive instrument for regional development.
I think of the number of new industries and plants which have located in the Algoma-Manitoulin area which I represent. It is hard to know whether we would have been successful in securing many of those industries without the help of this legislation.
We have one of the largest sawmill operations in northern Ontario capable of producing 100 million board feet of lumber a year, and I understand there are plans to increase output to 150 million board feet of lumber a year. This is really a very large operation and the project got started through assistance from the Regional Development Incentives Act. Of course, a large number of other projects have been established, including a veneer mill, a barrel factory related to our mining industry, concrete manufacturing plants, meat-packing plants, a fish processing plant, sawmills, bakeries and so on, industries which have benefited directly from the existing legislation. Without this kind of incentive and determination on the part of the government to assist these industries, many of them would not have located in the north.
The one thing we have really learned from this legislation is that, even on the basis of very strong financial incentives, it is still incredibly difficult to persuade industries to locate in the slow-growth areas; they seem to want to locate within a few miles of their markets, so naturally they try to locate near the large metropolitan areas. To draw them away from that natural desire requires a very strong incentive. One condition
June 20, 1980

of success often appears to be principals who, for one reason or another, are interested in the north, or interested in one of the slow-growth areas as well as benefiting from the incentives. There usually has to be some natural advantage-good transportation, the location of the resource close by or other favourable factors in addition to the incentive provided by legislation.
I hope that during the next few weeks the minister will give priority to reviewing the proposal to establish a new rural development agreement for northern Ontario with the provincial government. This agreement has been awaiting action for the past year during two changes of government and it is urgent that it should be signed now. It involves a relatively modest demand on the public treasury, yet its impact on literally dozens of rural communities will be very great. So I hope the minister will move ahead to sign that agreement because, as I say, its impact on rural communities will be very great in terms of economic development affecting the agricultural sector, small forestry and woodlot operations, small mining operations, Indian bands, the tourist industry and developments related thereto.
It is terribly important in fashioning rural development policies that we should not only use incentives such as the act we are being asked to extend today, but that government policy come down squarely on the side of locating industries in slow-growth areas. In this context I think of the decision by the federal government a few weeks ago to establish the Eldorado uranium refinery in the Algoma district close to the source of uranium there. This decision flowed from a policy commitment made by the Liberal party during the general election to process energy resources close to the source of supply. For us, it meant processing uranium and the refining of uranium in the Algoma district. For people in western Canada it would mean seeing the future development of the petrochemical industry located in Alberta and Saskatchewan and those parts of the country where the petroleum and natural gas reserves are to be found. Ultimately, of course, if the finds off Sable Island and the east coast offshore of Newfoundland are successful, it would mean the same there.
This is a policy which, in a conceptual way, I believe most Canadians support, though when one gets down to the nitty-gritty of moving a refinery from one part of the country to another it is more difficult to get unanimous support. But a policy decision of that kind, set out ahead of time, has a great impact and would save millions of dollars in the avoidance of push-pull from various communities. It is most important there should be a policy decision of that kind taken well in advance of major Crown corporation decisions as to the location of processing industries.
I want to compliment the government on the pulp and paper industry agreement in Ontario. There is no doubt that this agreement is resulting in major revitalization and retooling of the pulp and paper industry. In my own constituency in Espanola and Sault Ste. Marie, it is resulting in a major redevelopment of the entire industry. In the case of Espanola, something like $25 million in incentive grants is involved in a major effort to modernize and improve the environmental
Regional Development Incentives Act
facilities as part of a capital investment of around $225 million. The result will be a much more modern and environmentally acceptable operation.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House interrupted its proceedings at one o'clock, the motion for second reading of Bill C-35, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act, was before the House, and the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) had the floor.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned at the lunch break our consideration of Bill C-35, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act, I was speaking about the importance to northern Ontario of the pulp and paper industry agreements with the province of Ontario which will be so instrumental in ensuring the long-term viability of this industry, let alone the improvements to the environmental operation of this very important industry. It employs some 30 per cent or 32 per cent of the people in northeastern Ontario engaged in the manufacturing and processing sector. However, companion to that agreement is the arrangement for a forest management agreement, which is providing improved access, renewal of our forest resources and building up access to forest management areas.
Combined with that I think is an important program which is being implemented at the present time by the provincial government to have the pulp and paper companies carry out much of their own reforestation, and surely that can be done more efficiently that way because there is nobody with a greater incentive to see the forest management areas reforested than the pulp and paper companies themselves.
In the case of the example, which I quoted before lunch, of the Eddy forest products plant in Espanola, it is expanding its capacity from 700 tons a day to close to 1,000 tons a day, so that it has the incentive to ensure the long-term viability of its forest reserves. Those three things go hand in hand. Through its agreements the federal government is rightly involved in two of them which are very important to northern Ontario.

June 20, 1980
Regional Development Incentives Act
I have been encouraging the establishment of a program in two rural areas of Algoma-Manitoulin. I am referring to the local economic development assistance program of the Department of Employment and Immigration. That department will be providing funding for some 18 local projects across the country. It will set up local economic development corporations to provide funding for administration assistance for researching, new industries locating in the area and new economic opportunities. Also it will provide funding for equity investment and loans of assistance as an incentive to industries wanting to locate in slow-growth areas.
Some experimental projects have been very successful in the United States in such areas as Kentucky and others with slow-growth problems such as those faced in northern Ontario. It will be interesting to see how successful this approach will be during the next few years. Certainly the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) favours local involvement and initiative in creating, developing and exploiting local economic opportunities.
Earlier this morning 1 mentioned the importance of policy decisions in ensuring that we direct to slow-growth areas industries which have a natural affinity or advantage in locating in what are often resource areas. It is important to clear the way through the DREE program, which has been done in many areas, by providing assistance in infrastructure. I am thinking of a number of communities in eastern Canada and northern Ontario where assistance has been provided for major sewage and water treatment facilities or industrial parks where local communities had an opportunity to move ahead with economic development but did not have the wherewithal to do it.
Surely Sault Ste. Marie, at this juncture in its development, has reached the total capacity that existing sewer and water treatment facilities can accommodate. The community does not have the financial wherewithal to expand those, so there must be assistance from the federal and provincial governments. It seems to me the natural way to do that is through a federal-provincial subsidiary agreement under DREE. That will make it possible for the community to expand in terms of new industry and residential accommodation.
In that case the preliminary estimates show a cost of something like $26 million for the required facilities. The proposal has been before the federal and provincial governments for the past year or almost that long. The proposal is that some $18 million would be shared equally between the two senior levels of government and some $7 million would be contributed by the city. If we want to see industrial activity taking place there, we must assist in providing the infrastructure for massive facilities in order to have facilities not only for industries to utilize but also the residential part of the community, let alone the need for industrial parks which often is essential if new industry is to be attracted to a community of that type. The community has a natural advantage in that many people want to live there. It is the right size of city. It
has many recreational and other aspects which people are looking for today, but it requires assistance for infrastructure.
I want to indicate my support for this bill. I am sympathetic to the need to amend the bill in a more substantial way to make it more flexible in the future, as other members have mentioned.
The parliamentary secretary, speaking on behalf of the minister, mentioned the review which is taking place and the plan to put more extensive legislation before this House later this year or early next year. I hope we will have that flexibility because sometimes industries want to locate in slow-growth areas and the present act does not have the flexibility to provide assistance in that regard. I like the concept of a previous bill relating to tax incentives for industries to locate in slow-growth areas. Unfortunately that tax bill the former government had before the House did not apply to northern Ontario. It was recommended by the present minister for DREE to the then minister responsible for regional economic expansion in the standing committee last fall. If a bill of that nature is brought before the House again, certainly I hope it will provide that incentive for industries in northern Ontario.
I indicate my support of this bill to extend the Regional Development Incentives Act. Surely a program which has created some 12,000 new jobs in northern Ontario, resulting in some $468 million of investment to that part of the country, is very important and deserves our support.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are debating Bill C-35 to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act. 1 received a copy of the speaking notes of the parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for DREE. He said that the minister will be speaking later on this afternoon. There are a number of questions I want to pose to the minister to clear up a lot of the confusion he and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) have caused by their statements about DREE funds now being available for rail relocation in Winnipeg. This is a totally new concept. There have been a number of conflicting statements as to how and when they will be able to obtain this funding. I hope the minister will clear up that matter when he speaks on this bill.
The Ministry of Transport indicated that it will have no funds for rail relocation other than the UTAP funds provided to each province. When the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) questioned the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) last May regarding funding for rail relocation in Winnipeg, the President of the Treasury Board made it perfectly clear that he would be providing no funding whatsoever for rail relocation and that the moneys would have to come from some other minister's envelope. If the city of Winnipeg conducts a study on rail relocation and rehabilitation in the downtown area of that city and applies for DREE funds, what guarantee will they receive from the government as to which minister will provide funds out of his envelope? Will he have $10 million or $15 million in his envelope to hand out to the city of Winnipeg? That is a totally new concept, and we are entitled to some kind of explanation.
June 20, 1980

To further confuse the issue, on May 2 the minister for DREE said he had barely enough money to meet his existing commitments. We want to know whether the President of the Treasury Board is going to provide him with any additional funding, because if he is having trouble now, how are we going to get funds out of this supposed new formula for rail relocation or rehabilitation in downtown Winnipeg? The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has already made it perfectly clear to me when I questioned him on this funding for rail relocation in Winnipeg that he could not give me any assurance at all that he would be providing funding for rail relocation. That is why we want the minister for DREE to explain this new formula in detail.
There is no point in the city of Winnipeg, the province of Manitoba, or any other body, spending a lot of time and money on a study for rail relocation or rehabilitation when there is absolutely no guarantee from any minister that there will be $5 million or $10 million saved from an envelope for Winnipeg at any given time.
To further confuse the situation, on June 2 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) stated, as reported at page 1627 of Hansard:
-the government as a whole is offering the province of Manitoba funds otherwise available, from DREE particularly, in order to effect the relocation program.
The government as a whole is going to provide these funds. I am just not clear in my mind whether, when the study is completed and an application is made for the money to the federal government, the money will be available immediately, or whether the city and the province will have to wait a year or two until the minister gets a little more money in his envelope. These are the things the minister should clear up for us.
I have had a series of starred questions on the order paper since May 12 in an effort to clear up some of the confusion. 1 have asked that these questions be answered but the government is stalling, causing further suspicion.
Just to give the Elouse an idea of what I am trying to find out from the government about this new formula, let me read one of my questions as follows:
What was the rationale used by the government when it arrived at the "5 million a year for five years" formula suggested by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in the House on May 7, 1980, and what escalation formula will be adopted to allow for inflation over the five-year period?
Once we get this formula established and a guarantee that the moneys will be available, we will then know what we are talking about. Because some cities have spent a lot of time and money carrying out studies.
Another of my questions is as follows:
Would the DREE grant be made available under the condition that the full Winnipeg rail relocation project is adopted?
That is something the city of Winnipeg as well as the province will have to know.
Regional Development Incentives Act
Another of my starred questions is:
Would the DREE grant be made available under the condition that the Winnipeg grade separation project is adopted?
That is something else we will have to know, because it takes time and money for the city and province to do these studies initially.
1 think what is of concern to most members in the House is whether DREE funds will be taken from Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or British Columbia for this rail relocation. Surely they are entitled to an explanation too.
My starred question No. 12 is:
Will the funds for the CPR rail relocation in Winnipeg be diverted from (a) provincial (b) federal DREE programs and, if so, from which programs?
We want to know if these funds are to be supplied by cutting into other projects which are being planned in any of the provinces.
On June 2 in Winnipeg the minister for DREE and the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), the Minister of Employment and Immigration, held a press conference to announce this new formula. The Minister for Employment and Immigration stated that:
A federal promise of $50 to $60 million for inner city revitalization in Winnipeg is "new money", not a smokescreen for Ottawa's failure to commit money for rail relocation-
I hope the minister for DREE will be able to remove the smokescreen that exists right now by informing us where this $50 million to $60 million is to come from and at what time it will be available. I hope he will tell us what the time lapse will be between the time the city of Winnipeg and the province apply and receipt of the money. This is the sort of thing we want to find out. We have been led down the garden path before and that has cost the city of Winnipeg an additional $2 million cost overrun, because of delays caused by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and the federal government in carrying out a study on rail relocation. They did not come up with the money, and I suggest once bitten, twice shy.
The minister went on to say in Winnipeg:
-neither he nor Department of Regional Economic Expansion minister Pierre DeBane was dictating priorities to the city, "and at this point we're the only level of government to put our money on the table."
That is what we want to clear up. Is the money on the table, and which federal government department has taken the money out of the envelope to put on the table for Winnipeg?
In that news release they went on to say:
The funding package, which will not be tapped until 1981, comes largely from DREE, and Mr. De Bane said the $25 million available for capital projects and $7 million for economic and social development would be over and above contributions already committed to Manitoba.
This statement has been challenged by officials in the minister's office. The Winnipeg Tribune reported on June 2:
However, an official in the minister's office said last month that DREE funding to the province had been scheduled to drop from $40 million to about $20 million in 1982.
As hon. members can see, there is further confusion along the line.

June 20, 1980
Regional Development Incentives Act
1 mentioned earlier the delay of 14 to 15 months in the city of Winnipeg obtaining permit to build the Sherbrook-McGre-gor overpass at the CPR yards. This delay was due to the federal government insisting on another study. This cost the city of Winnipeg $2 million in cost overrun. The federal government is obligated to make up that $2 million, since the city of Winnipeg did not ask for a study or cause the delay. It asked for the permit about 15 months ago and it was stopped by the federal government. This cost overrun is a direct responsibility of the federal government because of the delaying tactics in which it indulged. 1 want it on record again this afternoon that there will be a formal application coming from the city calling for the federal government to reimburse the city for this $2 million cost overrun. I hope ministers are looking in their envelopes right now to find this $2 million in order to reimburse the city of Winnipeg.
This type of confusion and delaying tactic, calling for more studies, has caused nothing but confusion. The city of Winnipeg has co-operated over the years in these studies, but that has got it no place. There has been $1.1 million spent on studies for rail relocation. The city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba do not want any more money spent on studies in respect of applications for funds, particularly if we find that the money is not available.
When the minister gets on his feet to speak on this bill we want him to explain this envelope system and to tell us what kind of firm commitment he can make that the money will be available when the government receives an application. The province and the city are entitled to this explanation. 1 am sure hon. members will agree with me in this regard. This is the kind of firm commitment all of the provinces, not just Manitoba, will need. 1 hope the minister will go into some detail when he debates this matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure this afternoon in joining the debate on Bill C-35 to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act. Given the present economic situation in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and most particularly in eastern Canada where people are experiencing enormous difficulties, these subsidies will have a tremendous impact.
During the last few weeks, I heard the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane), especially in committees, explain the openness he intends to show towards the committee members and also towards the other parties in the House. He mentioned his intention of acting outside the bounds of this House to get closer to the people and the various economic agents that we find in that environment. I could only but be pleased by such an attitude of openmindedness on the part of the minister.
Mr. Speaker, when one lives in peripheral areas, in remote centres where people find it difficult to be in daily contact with the different levels of government, and when one sees that in a particular department, beginning with the minister and on
down the ladder through all the echelons of the administration, there is indeed a desire to get closer to the people by providing more information and ready access to the different systems of governments one finds cause for rejoicing.
This bill, which aims at extending the time limit for the provision of development incentives, is extremely important. I mentioned earlier a certain openness of mind and better communications with the population. In eastern Quebec, and especially in Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, we have witnessed a great experiment on the part of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which started with the desire of the minister to delegate a few officers to examine on site, with the people, the industrialists and the economic development officers, what type of development could be achieved through the department and what type of projects could benefit from the bill now under consideration.
After departmental officials returned from a three-day visit to the Magdalen Islands, they were able to pinpoint projects which would be eligible under the RDIA and would cost $8 million. As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing to go to the people, especially those in areas remote from centres like Quebec City, Montreal, St. John's, Halifax, or other major Canadian centres to explain what the government can do, because we can have very positive results since businessmen in these areas are aware of the various programs, but unfortunately they often do not know how they can apply or how to get through all the red tape to get what they want.
Admittedly, Mr. Speaker, we can only support the new policy that the minister wants to implement in his department, especially as concerns this bill since, because of this spirit of openness, our businessmen will be able to benefit from the programs placed at their disposal. Because of this experience which I mentioned in the Magdalen Islands, the minister during his last visit was able to announce incentives of $237,000 which will create 50 jobs within a small area. Mr. Speaker, this shows the importance of this bill and the importance of extending admissibility to this program for another five years. When we note that such a small amount will create 50 jobs, it is easy to imagine what we can achieve with grants of $1 million or $1.5 million in a region where unemployment reaches 40 per cent and sometimes 60 per cent. Indeed, this extension of five years will enable various industrialists to become more familiar with this legislation and to make applications which can promote economic development.
Also this morning I listened to my colleague from Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) refer to the role of DREE and the only way that department's role could be envisioned in relation to the others. I am in total agreement with his suggestions in that respect, and I could tell him that we are now proceeding on Magdalen Islands with an experiment that hopefully can illustrate what has been said on that subject.
June 20, 1980

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it will be remembered that on June 8 last the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion announced on Magdalen Islands an economic priming program with a minimum $15 million funding. Clearly that can only be achieved with the co-operation of every federal department involved on the islands. I think we now have an opportunity for a pilot experiment to convince and show every other department of the federal government how DREE, in areas where there exist unthinkable and unacceptable rates of unemployment, could co-ordinate the work of all the various economic agents at the federal level.
We have DREE on the Magdalen Islands, and we will have the co-operation of the four departments directly involved, namely the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that account for 60 per cent of the livelihood of the people; the Department of Transport that is directly involved in air and marine transportation, which is the only raison d'etre and the only possibility for the people to get out of the islands; the Department of Agriculture, through which we will be able to see what the possibilities are to try and reach self-sufficiency in certain crops; and finally, the Department of the Environment, which will have to look after the co-ordination of these various departments in order to protect the marine subsoil and the balance that should exist.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have five departments directly involved and they will have to work together to ensure a harmonious economic development on the Magdalen Islands. From the various comments we heard in the Magdalen Islands following the announcement by the minister, I think those people are truly determined to prove to the federal government that we can work in co-operation and that when it comes to economic development all departments can readily co-ordinate their efforts and succeed in reducing the rate of unemployment in our region of Quebec where, as I suggested earlier, we have at certain times of the year unacceptable rates of unemployment.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am sure our colleague from Central Nova, when in three or four years he can see the results we got with that endeavour and that pilot experiment we are doing on a piece of land which he knows very well and which is not very far from his own riding, will be able to see indeed the enormous efforts we made and how we succeeded in coordinating the actions of different federal departments to spur economic development.
Mr. Speaker, this leads me to relate the regional development incentives program to other agreements within the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I praised earlier the benefits of such agreements but I also believe the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should orient its policy in certain areas, as it has already done in the past, towards comprehensive agreements. Once again, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion proposed to the government of Quebec a comprehensive agreement for the development of eastern Quebec. I believe we have to go beyond the experience
Regional Development Incentives Act we had from 1968 to 1976 in this area where we managed to set up and put in place administrative structures, road and maritime infrastructures, and we need to go beyond that and a little further in the advancement of economic development.
Obviously, if the Quebec government decides-and I hope it will take this suggestion very seriously-to accept such an agreement, we in eastern Quebec will be really able to develop our economy and raise the standard of living in that area to the same level as in the rest of the country. We simply cannot hope to raise the standard of living of a region facing tremendous unemployment problems and where most jobs are seasonal and to reach a decent standard of living only through measures that may be good but that are too often mere bandaids applied to chronic problems.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, we and the minister get tremendous support in that part of Quebec and again I hope that the government of the province of Quebec will respond to the desire of the people to conclude such an agreement. And again, to come back to the bill, as I said earlier the industrialists of that region who are facing tremendous difficulties are in favour of such legislation.
When you realize that at this time of the year people become aware of the importance of economic development, we should not penalize them by not passing a bill that would extend the program for at least five years. I talk about a five-year period. This morning I heard my colleagues suggest a shorter time period. I do not need to say, Mr. Speaker, that I fully agree on a five-year period because, as I said earlier, remoteness from large centres is a good reason to maintain that five-year period. Given the many administrative delays that those industrialists have to overcome to get their projects approved, that five-year period is not too long. When you consider the date of the application for a grant and the date of its approval you realize that there is a waiting period of 18 months to two years before a project is approved, so I do not believe that a five-year period is too long. This is why we should provide that time period for this bill.
Obviously, businessmen who rub shoulders with decision makers may think that five years is too long. But we must remember that those who live in isolated areas have to keep distances in mind and face other problems as well, so are not these incentives precisely aimed at helping Canadians who live in those areas? I think that was the initial aim of the program and that is why we want to keep those incentives and that five-year period.
There is another issue that I would like to touch upon, Mr. Speaker, and which is related to what I was mentioning earlier about the relationship between the various federal departments, and that is that DREE should play the role it was created for as far as the other departments are concerned. In those regions, and I will never say it often enough, where

June 20, 1980
Regional Development Incentives Act disparities exist, the regulations and legislation administered by most departments, and which are made at a national level, can hardly be applied, or if they are it is not in the interest of the local population. So why could the Department of Regional Economic Expansion not serve as some kind of bridge for national legislation in order to correct these inequalities? For example, in the field of transportation, every user of an airport must pay the rental cost of the space used, but how can an airline do this in areas like the Gaspe peninsula, the lower north shore in northeast New Brunswick where passenger traffic is certainly not as heavy as in Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto or Winnipeg? How can the users absorb in their costs that price difference? Now why should the Department of Regional Economic Expansion not be used specifically to bridge that gap?
That, Mr. Speaker, is a real problem of regional disparity and the department should indeed be used to help solve it. Knowing that the minister is broadminded and that he would like to alleviate regional disparities, 1 am sure he will find out how he could act in co-operation with other departments to make up those deficits. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that this bill is very important. I hope the three parties in the House will pass it as quickly as possible so that we can maintain that five-year period to enable industrialists in remote places to take advantage of the legislation in all fairness and obtain as much as possible for the economic development of our regions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-35. While all hon. members who have spoken on the bill so far have a disposition to move it along, that should not detract from the fundamental importance of the bill. It gives me some concern that it is being debated on a quiet Friday afternoon just before the long St. Jean Baptiste weekend when many members are absent, some of whom may have different thoughts about DREE. Questions have been raised in this House about DREE grants to industries in certain parts of the country. This is, therefore, a subject which deserves a very full and substantive debate, and in the circumstances that may not take place this afternoon.
It would appear that the treasury benches are contemplating a new bill and when that is presented it might present the best opportunity to discuss these measures.
I must say that I share the concern of several hon. members, including the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), the very distinguished former minister of this department, and also the member of the NDP who spoke earlier today. Both members questioned the five-year extension clause. We all know that syndrome-indeed, it might be called "parliamentary constipation". The Bank Act, for instance, is extended every five years or every ten years. We never review it; we just give it another year's boost.
I do not know how many members appreciate the fact that while DREE was created in 1969 the act has, in effect, already been extended for a five-year period. I think if the proposed extension were for two or three years, we would be forced to come to grips with some of the fundamental principles involved in the whole policy of DREE. As I said earlier, those principles are so fundamental to helping the regions of this country and/or giving balance to the central portion of the country- which feels a little threatened at times in view of the economic changes taking place in the world and in Canada-that this shorter intention would give members a chance to debate the philosophy behind DREE.
1 think you were in the House, Mr. Speaker, when the first minister of DREE, Mr. Marchand, said-or perhaps it was said in the Speech from the Throne in 1969-that this was a bold new adventure. The actual quotation is "-a bold new instrument for combating regional disparities in Canada."
A strong effort has certainly been made in this direction and people in the department have sincerely tried to implement this policy. DREE is better than some departments in that its very composition is more decentralized than others that seem to "grow like Topsy" in Ottawa or in the central area of the country. In that sense DREE has a good history of trying to decentralize its staff, its officials and its operation to the areas most directly affected by its policy. That is a very positive matter.
Before I get into the substance of the bill, Mr. Speaker, 1 should perhaps first devote a short sentence or two-which might be highly provocative if certain members were in the House-to paying my respects to and congratulating the former minister, the hon. member for Central Nova, and the present minister, the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. De Bane). In private discussions with the minister, both before and after his appointment, he indicated that he wants to carry on the good work started by the hon. member for Central Nova.
In particular, I single out those two members. I suppose 1 could have singled out others, but 1 single out those two because they were directly involved with the most recent announcement of substance from DREE. This involved the extension and grant to enable Michelin to set up a large operation and develop it in Nova Scotia. This plant just happens to be in my riding. It will have an immense and substantive effect on the economy of Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia and particularly the Annapolis Valley. Therefore, for what it is worth-of course, words are free so perhaps they are not worth that much-I want to extend publicly my thanks to the ministers responsible for DREE, together with their provincial counterparts, for bringing to a conclusion an agreement which involved many sensitive cross currents in view of the many problems which this country faces.
Having said that, I would like to comment on the substance of the bill and talk about the whole question of regional disparity. I am not trying to diminish the philosophy which
June 20, 1980

both governments would like to follow since this department has been established, but the fact is that while large grants of money have been directed, pumped in and sent under transfer payments to areas of regional economic disparity to help living standards and the rate of personal income, the actual reality is that in terms of changes in basic economic structures there has not been that change in the five provinces most affected by DREE, namely Quebec, the three Atlantic provinces and Manitoba.
Speaking of Atlantic Canada, there has not been that fundamental shift in the economic structure even with the massive inputs from transfer payments and other types of payments from the federal treasury. This is the reason why the whole subject matter of DREE policy should be debated either in this House or before the responsible committee. I suggest that to eliminate any conflict of interest that any member could have and yet still allow him to have input, now that we are ten years down the road from the inception and development of DREE, serious consideration should be given, even before the new bill is brought in, to opening up a forum to assess the whole philosophy of DREE in terms of the ten years' experience we have had. Therefore, there could be more solid guidelines formulated to point to the future in a new comprehensive bill.
DREE got under way in the budget of 1970-71. It is so easy to shove everything off into studies, commissions and inquiries. Sometimes large amounts of money have been spent to help parts of the country that feel aggrieved at not sharing some of the economic benefits that natural resources and history are presently helping them enjoy. Hopefully the minister will read my suggestion in Hansard or his officials will tell him that something sensible has been said in this debate, assuming any remarks are sensible.
Perhaps it is ironic or paradoxical that since we have had DREE and moneys have been going into DREE policy, other parts of the country-primarily the west because of energy and natural resources which are more accessible to the large markets of the United States-have been booming while we in the east have been going through a static period. We have not had any real growth in terms of the rest of the country, although obviously there has been growth there. Along with the oil problem and the loss of some of our markets because firms are moving out of the northeastern United States, some of our resource-based industries, be they textiles, pulp and paper, or even a shoe industry in Quebec, are all going through extra stress and strain. This stress and strain is not just a result of conditions in Canada but is created by the international trading picture and trading blocks that have been formed. As I say, in one sense it is a juxtaposition to natural growth. No one is taking away the natural growth in the west, but there are natural ingredients that are making the west grow. In the east, almost at the Ottawa River line, which was the gas policy line, there are problems within Atlantic Canada and eastern Canada that accentuate the need for a vibrant DREE policy to help that area rather than just making transfer payments.
Regional Development Incentives Act
I am going to cite a few figures in terms of transfer of payments which are rather horrendous, even with DREE, which, while it has helped maintain the standard of living, has not been the great incentive for new and vibrant economic growth. Some of us will remember the then premier of British Columbia, Mr. Bennett, who at one federal-provincial conference made the proposal that while we might have the best intentions to help those in Atlantic Canada with the administrative structure under DREE and other types of payments, hand-outs and/or transfer payments, perhaps the best way would be to have a more direct payment to everyone, either in the country or in Atlantic Canada. I do not want this to be misconstrued as an unnecessary suggestion of direct payment under some income level, a negative income tax or even an income incentive program. But there is no doubt that in a lot of the transfer payments to Atlantic Canada the dollar is eaten up in administration and bureaucracy. The actual productive dollar that gets down into the plant is actually even less than some of the figures show. I am going to quote some startling figures which show that while the budget in dollars may be going up, from $330 million in 1970-71 to over $500 million in 1979-80, in real terms, because of the inflation factor, the amount spent has actually gone down in Atlantic Canada.
I would like to refer directly to an interesting speech given by Judith Maxwell of the C. D. Howe Research Institute. This is printed in booklet form, dated April, 1978. Her speech was given before the Canadian Club in Toronto in April, 1978. She points out some interesting things in terms of development and refers specifically to Atlantic Canada. At page 4 of her speech she says this:
Basically, the four Atlantic provinces have become government dependencies. In 1974, about 86 per cent of economic activity (total final expenditure) in the Atlantic region flowed through the government sector. The comparable figure for Ontario was 41 per cent. This is the broadest measure of government activity, since it includes family allowances, unemployment insurance, and interest payments on the public debt as well as government investment activity.
That is a pretty horrendous figure. I venture to suggest that the situation has not changed that much fundamentally or substantively in 1980, but in 1974, 86 per cent of economic activity-that is the total final expenditure in the Atlantic region-flowed through the government sector, compared to 41 per cent in Ontario.
Another interesting statistic which I was aware of, though I was not sure of the percentage, is this. Judith Maxwell says this:
Another critical indication of the economic health of the Atlantic region is that net imports (that is, total exports minus total imports) accounted for 43 per cent of provincial product in 1974. The Atlantic provinces were therefore spending 43 per cent more than they earned and were creating a market for far more goods and services than they could produce locally.
Not only do we have this massive inflow of government payments under all its headings-family allowances, unemployment insurance pay-outs, transfer payments, post-secondary education and DREE-to the tune of 86 per cent, but in the Atlantic area itself we are bringing in more goods and thus shipping out money and importing 43 per cent, most of which we could produce ourselves with proper help. This is why DREE is so fundamental. When you look at DREE, this is

June 20, 1980
Regional Development Incentives Act what gives me concern on this Friday afternoon. 1 am not trying to cast stones because the trends have been there since the policy was developed. In the first full year of DREE operation in 1970-71, DREE development expenditures had accounted for 2.1 per cent of total federal expenditures, $330.8 million out of a budget of $15.8 billion. Let us look at each year thereafter. In 1971-72 it went up slightly, to $349 million. In 1972-73 it went to $364.9 million. In 1973-74, $424.3 million and 1974-75, $438.6 million. When you get to 197778, it was $562.2 million against a budget of $45.2 billion.
By that time the total expenditures related to government expenditures were 1.2 per cent. In the figures from this public accounts table, which at that time were estimates prepared for 1979-80, the estimated DREE expenditure was $592.8 million, almost $600 million of a budget of $52 billion, for a DREE expenditure of 1.1 per cent of total government spending.
In capsule form, if the figure of 2.1 per cent was agreed when the program was set up to be a reasonable figure for expenditures under DREE to help the areas of regional economic expansion, why have we not had more debate on that ten years later, and why it is only 1.1 per cent of the budget. What is more significant is relating the actual dollars to the inflationary factor that has affected all government programs. There you reach a horrendous conclusion. If you relate the budget of DREE to the inflationary factor, the economic impact of DREE on Atlantic Canada is substantially less relative to ten years ago when the program began. It has been decreasing every year in terms of constant dollars.
Since 1970-71 there has been a steady downward trend in the percentage of federal effort available to DREE. In 1978-79 DREE's share of the $50.3 billion had fallen to 1.1 percent of the budget. I am looking for the figures I have on the real value in terms of the constant dollar. The real value of the DREE program to Atlantic Canada has dropped. Of course, we all know you can do anything with figures, but these figures are from the public records of Canada.
The real value of Atlantic Canada's DREE budget plummeted to 41.2 per cent. In 1970-71 in constant 1971 dollars, the region received $184 million for development. This is Atlantic Canada. In 1977-78 it had dropped to $108.3 million. While the Atlantic region received 41.2 per cent less, the rest of Canada was receiving a 5.9 per cent real increase in DREE spending over the same period.
I am not going to cloud the record with a lot of tables, but in terms of constant dollars, going back to the total program and not just Atlantic Canada, the total program of $330.8 million in 1970-71 in terms of the time when you get to 1978-79, in constant 1971 dollars only had a dollar impact of $294.5 million.
In terms of the problems affecting Canada, let alone the impact and the negative things affecting Atlantic Canada, I suggest that these figures in terms of the DREE budget and the inflationary factor, which is almost cut in half, require even a better look to see where we go in Atlantic Canada and
the direction for the whole DREE program. Because there are influences, and members can raise legitimate complaints about DREE, any economist looking at government legislation and the history of government in this country would say there have been policies which tended to centralize the development of industry in the central portion of this region.
The Bank Act, which is now being considered in committee before coming back to this House, is an instrument of financial policy which does not help the areas of regional economic disparity. In fact it helps the centralist impact. We also have a tariff policy and, as I said before, a transportation policy. Unless we somehow get a handle on these various instruments of government, be they transportation, banking or energy, we can talk all we want in this House of Commons and in committees in terms of the philosophy of DREE.
Most members agree that you help your neighbour. It is almost a Christian ethic, an ethic that came down through the ages in almost every religion. You help your neighbour who does not have as much as you. That philosophy would find support in this House. However, in terms of pragmatics and practicality in government, you must co-ordinate these various agencies and instruments of government. No matter if you double the DREE contribution and/or expenditure estimates, ten years later you might look at Atlantic Canada, or in fact we can look at it today, and say that there have been some specific successes that have helped people get jobs.
In terms of a fundamental change in economic structure in developing industries that are compatible with their region, we should not try to transfer economic clones that cannot survive in a climate which is not compatible with their growth. Once you take away the prop of a DREE grant, such as a no-interest loan, ten years later we could be saying that we not only spent the millions that the minister mentioned in his opening statement. It was a sizeable figure. As we all know, it was seed money. I think it was $600 million. It must be more than that really. That was seed money to help stimulate the expenditure of over $4.3 billion.
All that is to the good. However, I suggest that in this review of DREE there should be an opportunity to review it rather than just get caught with the act on a Friday afternoon. It may be all right for the parliamentary committee when it gets the new bill, but we all know the problems of parliamentary committees. They are swamped with work. Members are trying to cover two or three bases. You do not have the expertise to give you objective, independent advice. I am not casting stones, but by necessity you cut off a number of witnesses in order to get on with the business. You may have estimates of the department or any number of things.
I wonder if a parliamentary committee, even with the new bill that may be on the docket, is the forum to make an objective review of the whole philosophy of DREE. As I pointed out, in terms of massive government expenditure in Atlantic Canada, we tried to shift from that and develop our own private sector into a healthier community than it is today.
I tried to quote figures today in an unbiased, objective way. Ten years after starting the program, the actual expenditure of
June 20, 1980

DREE in terms of total dollars is 1.1 per cent of the total budget compared to 2.1 per cent ten years ago. That is further reduced by the impact of inflation. You find that the $600 million is really only worth half of that because of inflation. We have other policies and instruments of government that work counter to development of some of these areas of regional disparity.
I am starting to repeat myself, so 1 am going to conclude. We cannot have an effective, viable DREE policy by just transferring payments, helping a basic standard of living and not directing the policy to changing economic structures. Even though every effort is made, and officials work hard, you cannot have a change in the economic structure unless you co-ordinate that policy of grants, low interest bearing loans and that type of thing, with action in other areas. Look at what you have on the opposite side-the Bank Act, transportation policy, energy policy, to name only three of the basic policies which cover the country; I do not even need to talk about such things as the Canada-U.S. auto pact and other policies of that kind which are more specific to the central area. Then there is tariff policy.
These are four major areas which must be co-ordinated with DREE if we really want to achieve real growth based on a solid structure in Atlantic Canada. I am talking about Atlantic Canada because I know it better than the Interlake region of Manitoba or, obviously, parts of Quebec, although Quebec in terms of its future, I say with respect, is not as positive when one thinks of the future, bearing in mind that some of its industries, the textile industry and the furniture industry in particular, are under pressure. At least in Atlantic Canada we have the fisheries which, now, with the 200-mile limit are the base for real growth. We have a potential for gas and oil which obviously will be a base for growth, and if we can develop these potentials on the basis of a viable DREE policy which tries to rationalize the conflicts in other areas then, I think, we could be on a new path, and perhaps ten years down the road this House in terms of Atlantic Canada might not even have to debate DREE.
In conclusion, a word as to the forum. If it is just going to be a parliamentary forum, a parliamentary committee, there is not likely to be substantive input or a worthwhile assessment of the experience of the last ten years. Some professors hold the view that rather than having an absolute policy, a department of regional economic expansion, the most effective way to help areas which are less fortunate than others would be to set up what I gather we were being asked to do in connection with the social development bill we passed the other day, that is, in effect, an over-all secretariat which would have a direct input into and direct power over some of the line departments so as to lessen the influence of competing bureaucracies working for their own interests and exercising indirectly an adverse effect on the development of the regions. This is an idea which, perhaps, might be considered if there were a proper forum in which to go into the whole question.
Regional Development Incentives Act
While this is a quiet afternoon, the measure before us is certainly one of fundamental importance for areas where there is regional disparity, and certainly Atlantic Canada is one of them. I believe that after ten years of experience it is time to assess what has been done because there have been some bad strike-outs in regional development, as we all know. 1 do not need to read the litany of plants that grabbed some money and then went belly-up. In addition, there are obviously conflicts of interest which have found expression in this chamber in the last two or three weeks. Some have wondered why there should even be a DREE policy at all. I believe it is better to face the issue rather than defer it for another five years, so that ten years down the road we might have a better economy in all parts of Canada with the help of the present act.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this bill because, as the minister has indicated, it is his intention to review the operations of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and perhaps come up with another bill with an entirely different approach. In any event he intends to take a careful look at the operations of the department.
Sometimes a bill is presented to us as a fait accompli, by which time it is almost too late to influence its contents although, of course, we are given an opportunity to express our views. By that time the minds of the civil servants concerned have been made up; they have drafted the bill and the minister has shown his support. Members have an opportunity to comment and are in a position to say, later, "I made my speech but you didn't listen." The best time to talk about these things is while ideas are being exchanged and different approaches are being considered. The one which is finally settled upon is probably the one which satisfies most of the people in the department-the minister naturally puts in his political input. So I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments.
I am one of the fortunate few in the House of Commons who were here when the concept of DREE was originally introduced. I know that some hon. members, including the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), have the impression that it goes back to 1969. Mr. Speaker, that is not the year in which the idea originated. The original concept goes back to 1957 with the equalization concept. This did not mean there was any kind of fund or any kind of department established to operate in a particular region.
In 1961 the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) was minister of northern affairs. He introduced a measure which was known as the ARDA bill-the initials stand for Agricultural and Rural Development Act. 1 heard his speech at the time and I recall the comment that this was a new approach which would assist communities to instal sewers and a variety of other necessary works. They could even plant trees. I found it difficult to relate sewers and trees at that time; I could not understand how one bill could be so encompassing. But, as my hon. friend explained at that time, the idea was derived from a bill which had its origin in the United States. I can recall my hon. friend talking about reforestation in Minnesota. We have to remember that in those days the
2336

June 20, 1980
Regional Development Incentives Act total budget of the federal government was something like $5 billion; today the budget is about ten times that amount.
Ever since those days the concept has been expanded. There was FRED, the Fund for Rural Economic Development. This encompassed areas such as the Interlake region of Manitoba, and afforded an opportunity to try out experiments. Hon. members must bear in mind that these were all experimental programs. Then there was establishment of the Atlantic Development Board which, I am sure, must have embarked on a considerable number of experiments. Then there was ARDA, the Area Regional Development Act, and the regional development legislation as it presently exists. My point is that the concept goes back a long way.
The impression I got from the Liberals was that while the Conservative government under Mr. Diefenbaker from 1958 to 1962 had introduced it, they were somehow going to erase history and remove any reference to a Conservative concept. So they came out with the idea of a department of regional economic expansion. From there on it was going to be a Liberal idea.
Regardless of whose idea it was, I want to trace some of that history for one specific reason. The point of it all was that this type of legislation was necessary. We could not keep running back to the government. All of us understand how cumbersome government can be. Every time we had a project we wanted to undertake we could not come back and ask for funds. We would wait for one department to move and then another department to move, and we really could not do anything. As a result this type of department was set up, but in setting it up it became very powerful, and it could grow to be very powerful and become a monster unless we have these periodic reviews. The former minister in the previous administration commented on that very aspect. Funds grow, requirements are always there, we do have regional disparities, there is a desire among civil servants to try to do their best, and there is no doubt in my mind that there is competition between provincial authorities and federal authorities.
In the province of Saskatchewan we have another type of competition. The department of northern affairs of Saskatchewan takes funds from the federal government and tries to tell everybody that all the funds, all the work and all the goodies come compliments of the province. They even moved a whole department of government into my area. They fan out in all directions; and there are people who work in every community. From original applications to final payments, matters are handled by the provincial administration, but 60 per cent of the funds come from the federal government. Regardless of whether there is a Conservative administration or a Liberal administration, the federal government is not given any credit, at least in the province of Saskatchewan, and regardless of whether the federal government is Conservative, under which this concept originated, or Liberal, I feel that they deserve a considerable amount of credit.


Mr. Cosgrove:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: There is no way that there would be any funds without federal participation, because there is no money to be made in many instances. It is a matter of providing opportunities for employment in areas where there are no opportunities.
This world is very competitive and there is a natural tendency to gravitate to central Canada and to ignore other areas. Central Canada is in competition with other countries so it has to be competitive, but that leaves out the regions, and forever and a day they were left in limbo, until there was an operation such as this.
There is a tendency to grow, and there is a danger that the department could become too powerful. There could be a few people in the department who could wield tremendous powers, if one community or a group of communities wants a certain project. Where are most of the projects undertaken in my constituency? They are undertaken immediately around La Ronge. La Ronge is a growing community, and it needs many of these projects, but beyond La Ronge there are many small communities. It is easy for administrators to take an hour's drive to look at a project, but to go out into outlying areas might require flying. One might have to take a day or two, so therefore there is not that same type of pressure from within the communities. There are pressure groups and people within the department who see an obvious need for certain types of programs. There are pockets where there is greater growth, even though it is all within the operation of the department.
The entire department fans out, and only a few areas are not included under this particular operation. The NDP says that it is great that we pour money into this. I remember in 1972 when "corporate welfare bums" was the expression being used. They fanned out across the country and campaigned, and all they said, was "corporate welfare bums". That was wrong. Because of the fact that there was some big industry involved, the idea of helping industries which were in difficulty was all wrong. Now all of a sudden Chrysler or Michelin can be assisted, and that is good. It is good to assist Chrysler because it happens to be close to the heart of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), but move into another area where there is a bigger company, and suddenly it is not good.
The danger-and this is why a periodic review is necessary-as I see it is that as this kind of philosophy grows, every party says that that is fine, but who is to apply the brakes? From here on in, one after the other they will be lining up because grants are available. There has to be some braking mechanism because funds are limited. The original estimates prepared by the previous administration were $562 million in the blue book. I asked the minister in committee whether that was the original amount proposed by the previous administration, and he said yes.
With the transition from the previous Conservative administration to the present Liberal administration not a single extra dollar has gone into the regional development department. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tells us that the Conservatives have a fetish for cutting down on the deficit. When $3.5 billion
June 20, 1980

was added to the deficit, not one dollar went into this department. Where is money needed the most if not in this department? This is the type of department which helps depressed areas. Something somewhere is all wrong. Today we are subsidizing the price of oil to the tune of $10 million a day. Not one extra cent has gone to this department, but with the increase in the price of oil from $35 a barrel to $40 $1 million a day was added. If some of that money had been put into the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, jobs might have been created.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) tells us there is enough incentive. I heard the Prime Minister tell us the other day that there is enough incentive because we have a $14 billion deficit, but not one dollar was added to the budget of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The Liberal party and the New Democratic Party said in the last election campaign that the previous administration had cut down funds. I can tell hon. members about community after community where I hardly got a vote because of that type of political campaigning. Yet the administration now sitting opposite will not allow one dollar to be added for the benefit of depressed areas, and they come out smelling like roses. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, said that because of inflation we have less money in real terms. It was interesting to listen to his comment on that score because, in a sense, he is right.
There might be a way around this. There will be a parade to the public trough. This is a growing thing. Our society just cannot seem to move without some kind of incentive. "Everybody else gets a grant, so therefore we are entitled to a grant". If that is the way we train the people, I suppose that is the way they will act. It is one thing to train the people that way, but when we have corporations and businesses operating that way, we are in real trouble.
While there might be a need for direct grants, I suggest that perhaps there is a greater need for capital at reduced interest rates. That will cause these corporations or operators to stop and think that perhaps they do not need that much of a grant. If they even have to pay interest at a reduced rate, it will cause them to think perhaps they do not require that much money. Therefore there will be a braking mechanism.
I have another idea. The federal government contributes, for example, 60 per cent of the funds to the province of Saskatchewan. The philosophy is that it is necessary to have a co-operative or a department of government operating something or other. They are operating everything as long as there is money coming from the federal government. They could not move up north without the federal government handing out money first.
In committee I suggest that there should be an audit, but I believe I used the wrong word. We do have audits, but they are after the fact to ensure the right amount of money was spent. We must have a monitoring system which oversees the operations being conducted, because there can be waste upon waste. In years to come in many instances funds will go into areas
Regional Development Incentives Act which do not have the necessary technology, and are working with raw labour that is not trained in a particular field. Therefore they are bound to make a few errors, and a monitoring device will be necessary. If we enter into such a monitoring system, then there are always accusations that we are interfering with the provincial operation. So, how does one get around this problem? I do not see any other way. The taxpayers are entitled to get their money's worth.
I have received reports from my constituency on various operations. They asked what I can do about it. I cannot even go to the government or the minister to tell them about what is going on, because the operation is conducted by a provincial government. They have a line beyond which they cannot go. They are merely handed a bill, but they cannot say anything about how the money is being wasted in the operation. It is not too good to talk to them after the agreement has been signed. Originally everyone signs with good intention. Yes, they get together and plan. In fact the planning stage is great, and co-operation is great at both levels. The co-operation between the federal and provincial governments is great. The community is involved, and so on. Everything is go, go, go. However, once the agreement is signed, is in operation and is turned over to the provincial government, the federal government steps aside and says, "They know what is best; they can operate it."
What I am suggesting is that we require a monitoring system. It does not mean that the system will interfere with the operations of the provincial government. The monitoring system should not be conducted by the people who originally worked on the idea. It should be conducted by someone who is totally divorced from the idea. He or she can come in as an observer from another area, not knowing the people involved and perhaps not developing a close relationship. But he or she can report back to the minister who, in turn, simply identifies the areas where there seems to be waste. Then the minister can report back to the provincial authority. If they do not want to correct the situation, then we have a mechanism to make it public.
I am referring to the press and opposition political parties who are willing to make it public. The report should be public. It should not go to the minister so that he can put it under a table somewhere. It should be a public report. The monitoring system should be made public so that if the government does not get the message back to the provincial authorities, then the opposition will certainly do it. The opposition will play its role and expose it. Politicians being what they are do not like embarrassment any more than anyone else. I am sure provincial authorities do not like embarrassment either. That could be one method of getting around it. Without interfering with the provincial authorities, the political system could take over.
In many instances the NDP seem to draw a line at a certain point when they consider that it is too big. One can help organizations, companies, and groups of people, as long as one does not get big.
But I do not know at which point it become too big. Perhaps it is great to have big government, but one cannot have big organizations and so on. The NDP seem to draw the line. Some

June 20, 1980
Regional Development Incentives Act sort of criterion should be established because there is a danger in the funds being lapped up very quickly by these big corporations. They can lap up a huge amount of funds very quickly. Perhaps they will show in terms of the number of people employed that we are genuinely getting value for our money. The fact is that all the employment might be in one area. While one little pocket may be satisfied, countless numbers of small communities may not benefit. One operation may be a small one.
The number of small manufacturers springing up is rather fantastic. Somebody out there is building cupboards or little rock pickers; somebody out there has a new idea for a lift. Ideas are springing up in the minds of people who have creative imaginations but no capital. Perhaps they do not have too much business training, but they know their idea will sell, and eventually they prove themselves. There are many such enterprises across the country. It does not matter if one goes from east to west, from Quebec to Saskatchewan, I am sure there are such enterprises that are good for small communities.
I know of what I speak because I come from a very small community which had no opportunity, so to speak. Just a few miles down the road people started enterprises which really built up the town. Their first concern was how they could do something for the little community. That is good for the country and good for the community. There is local spirit. As these enterprises get bigger and bigger, especially those related to housing, schools and hospitals with their growing staffs, unfortunately they move on to larger areas. But many still remain and will remain, and they are the only things which keep a lot of these small communities alive.
As long as we do not lose sight of the original intent of the bill, to develop areas that do not have opportunities, everything will work out. If we lose sight of it, we will never get any opportunities from private enterprise because there is not a dollar to be made. I do not mind that type of assistance. It is the same as not minding it when we assist the lame or sick. Surely we all have that in our hearts, but we object to money being spent on enterprises which are sometimes questionable. We must have some satisfactory answers.
Another comment I want to make relates to a few enterprises that have been undertaken but sadly have folded. In fact, I could point to a smoked fish operation in my own area. Everything was fine. They had the co-operative fisheries, the fish, and they were right beside the lake. Also they had the great idea that there would be a market. Everything was satisfactory. They had a big opening of the plant. I suppose the "who's who" of the community came in, had a few drinks, made a few speeches, and everything was go. Approximately two weeks later the place folded up because somebody forgot to do a little research on the market possibilities. To this day I am sure one can find operation after operation similar to that.
I can think of a macaroni plant in Saskatchewan which was just another example of failure because of lack of research. I will not dwell on these failures because they will happen; there will always be failures. One can attempt something one thought was a great idea. One can try as one might, and it just
turns out to be a dud in spite of all the planning, thinking, and so on. I am sure the best intentions were there, but when the departments of two levels of government, provincial and federal, are involved, you should have some expertise in order to do better research. I am not going to dwell on this. I will accept that there are failures, but when you do not have satisfactory answers people are turned off.
People are turned off by that type of bureaucracy, if I can call it that. As a result they become cynical, and when they know this department is involved in any program they are inclined to say it is just another one of its operations. This does not mean there are not people involved who are well inten-tioned and well meaning, but somewhere along the line they get bogged down.
In some of these projects there was probably a certain amount of risk involved. As I have said, I am quite prepared to accept that there are a few failures. I do not want to have to apologize for what has taken place, or for mistakes that have been made, because there have been many successes. One can pick up a newspaper and read all kinds of rumours and speculations about this fellow and that fellow involved in a scandal here and a scandal there. They are scandal sheets, you see, but there are many good things happening in this world that do not make news. The good things are accepted, but if you have a nice talking point for conversation down the corridor or over a coffee roll, and that sort of thing, you can attract people. That sort of thing certainly attracts all the newspapermen because that is what they live on. People being what they are, I suppose they will be making comments along that line from time to time.
I do not want to continue, but I hope that before we get too far into rethinking the whole operation of the department we will have another opportunity to debate this so that other members can bring forward their ideas. I have just put forward a few ideas in the time allotted to me. I am sure there are many others who can put forward examples of things that have occurred in their own areas, and I hope they can present them before we have concluded consideration of this measure. This is a very good department and I wish the minister every success, but I hope the government will find a few more bucks to put into this fund so the department can do everything possible for depressed areas. Anyone who wants to check the books will find that there has not been a single cent put in since the last administration left office.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I believe members of the House are of one mind in wanting to conclude this debate prior to four o'clock and give second reading to the bill. Just let me make one suggestion to the minister, and this suggestion comes from having seen things as they have happened over the years during which DREE has been in operation.
In most cases under the Regional Development Incentives Act, as in the province of Alberta, the designated area line is drawn across the province. In Alberta everything above or
June 20, 1980

north of that line falls within the DREE designated area, while everything south or below falls within a prohibited area. As a result it does not matter how worth while a project may be, it cannot be assisted through DREE if it is south of that line.
As a matter of fact I know of one project that DREE officials said would qualify in every respect except for location.
1 do not think we should tie the minister's hands in that way. The minister should have enough flexibility so that he can consider a project and decide on its worthiness other than on the basis of its location. When a project must take place within a certain area, the purpose of the act is defeated. For instance, Fort McMurray lies north of that line in Alberta and there is no need for DREE assistance there. There is ample employment for thousands of people there, and things are going along fine. Perhaps we might find the same thing in other parts of northern Alberta, yet there have been projects suggested in areas south of the line which really would have increased production and provided employment, but the minister could not approve them because of that part which says projects must be in designated areas.
1 would strongly suggest to the minister that in establishing these areas or regions, the provinces should be designated, perhaps with much stricter criteria. In this way it is more likely we would assist the most worthy of the projects, and I am thinking of those projects which would create the greatest amount of employment and contribute increased production. Those are two of the major criteria that should be established, the provision of jobs and increased production. When we increase production we add buoyancy to the economy and make things better for everybody. Every endeavour should be made to designate areas so that we do not bar worth-while projects, but rather accept projects on the basis of worthiness rather than location.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, like others, 1 am committed to allowing the bill to pass second reading before four o'clock. I know it is the disposition of hon. members that this bill be referred to the committee today. However, I want to make a few short remarks. I make a special plea to the minister that at committee stage he give some thought to one problem in relation to the DREE program. This has already been alluded to by my good friend, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). This problem arises from the fact that those of us in the province of Alberta live in a situation where DREE operates in the northern part but cannot operate in towns and communities in the south. Many of those southern communities should not be receiving DREE grants, but they should not be robbed because of criteria in the DREE program. This is the basis of the appeal I make to members of all parties today.
Let me give an example of what happened in my constituency. A company in the city of Saskatoon wanted to relocate a sodium chloride plant in Camrose, Alberta. Officials of the company assessed this beautiful prairie city for their purposes. They found there was an ample water supply, two railway services with all the amenities required. However, they found that if they located the plant in Grande Prairie, a rather
Regional Development Incentives Act booming and prosperous community at this time, they could get a $3 million write-off. Obviously, Camrose, Alberta was not to become the location of this plant when the company found it could write off several millions by locating somewhere else. What happened was that the plant was to be located there, rather than in an area where there is not particularly rapid growth, but can be described as fairly stagnant. Because of DREE incentives the company located in an area other than the natural location for that industry.
My appeal to the minister and to the hon. members who will be sitting on the committee is that they attempt to arrive at some mechanism through which DREE grants are given to industries which wish to locate in areas that are naturally compatible with their operations. Certainly it is logical that we should provide incentives to the pulp and paper industry locating mills in Whitecourt, Alberta. Certainly that is not the case in respect of a sodium chloride plant being located in a place quite removed from a network for shipment to the prairie farming area, because a sodium chloride plant essentially serves the farm industry. Such a location is a false location, and I think these things should be taken into consideration.
1 hope that all hon. members will recognize the importance of ensuring that we use DREE as an incentive, not as a disincentive. 1 also hope that that particular point will be taken into mind by the committee and that it will attempt to do something to ensure that the dispatch of DREE money is done in an equitable fashion so that regions do not become angry, not so much at the fact that they will not be included in the project, but because a project hijacks businesses off to other parts of the country, leaving these regions void of the natural incentives that would have come their way had they not been syphoned off by DREE.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 intend to take only a minute or two. A number of members have referred to the disposition of the House to give this bill second reading this afternoon and send it to committee. We share in that disposition, but 1 would like to emphasize the point made by my colleague, the hon. member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), and by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), that we think that the bill should be amended in committee so that the extension will be just for two years, not for five years.
It is very clear that if the program is extended for five years, the pressure would be off the government to rewrite the legislation and meet the various points which have been made today. If it is a two-year limitation, then we think that there will be more chance of the revisions which are necessary being made in the act. It is on that understanding that we are prepared to let second reading carry this afternoon so that the bill may go to the standing committee.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I will respect the time remaining this afternoon so that this bill may go to committee. As I have sat here and

June 20, 1980
Regional Development Incentives Act listened to the remarks of my colleagues, and as I have realized that I am not on the committee which will receive this bill, I thought I should make just a few remarks in the few minutes that are remaining to debate Bill C-35 "An act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act."
There are no regional incentives available in my area in British Columbia. I believe that the westernmost limit of the DREE boundary is Revelstoke, British Columbia, although perhaps that booming town of Kelowna was once considered a part of the DREE area.
It is probably a good idea to extend this act because there are needs in many areas of the country, particularly in Atlantic Canada which relies a great deal on DREE. I suppose that the extension of five years, or as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has suggested, two years, will give the government an opportunity to redraft the legislation. However, there are one or two points which I would like to stress to the government at this time.
Like all government programs which involve handouts, the DREE program is subject to a number and variety of abuses. It also produces a number of bad effects in some of the areas in which it does not exist. There are many stories which hon. members can relate, and I will not go into the details although I have heard them, where in effect a particular business in a particular area receives the benefit of a DREE grant and, as a result, a short while later a perfectly viable competitor of that business in a non-DREE area is forced to close down because of the competitive advantage created by the DREE grant to the business which received it. The grants are usually used to extend, expand, or even commence a business.
There is a need for the extension of the program in the business field, but I think that the fact there is a need for this extension indicates, or should indicate, to the government that its policies for industrial stimulation are inadequate in the areas where this help is needed and that the program itself must be tightened up to prevent the kinds of abuses which exist. There should also be measures to prevent the inequities where an area is being helped, while another area is being hurt.
What should be learnt from the fact that DREE has had to be created and extended is that the government should have a better look at its over-all industrial strategy so that programs such as this can be eliminated and business can be left to expand on its own without the use of taxpayers' dollars.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.

David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their co-operation this afternoon in getting Bill C-35 to committee. We do have a few extra minutes, and I assume that we will move immediately to private members' hour. I would just state before some hon. members leave that next Wednesday we will be dealing with the Committee of the Whole stage of Bill C-19 which, I understand, is close to being wrapped up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not next Wednesday.


David Michael Collenette: Pardon me, it is not next Wednesday, but next Thursday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I do not need to correct you.


David Michael Collenette: Then we will go on to Bill C-3, "An act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act". Of course next Wednesday, as my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was most agitated to tell us, is an opposition day in the name of the New Democratic Party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council realizes that next Wednesday we are giving the Liberals the opportunity to vote for the same motion which they voted for last December 13.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, could the parliamentary secretary indicate when Bill S-6 will come before the House? Will it be next week?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, it was our intention to bring Bill S-6 before the House this afternoon, but there was so much discussion on Bill C-35. We were also intending to call Bill C-22, for which the President of the Treasury Board was present most of the afternoon. Bill C-22 was ahead of Bill S-6. I cannot give the hon. member a commitment, but it will be soon.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall order No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 20, 1980


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall order No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall order No. 7, standing in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Jack Wendele Shields: that Bill C-208, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of results of opinion polls), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and present this bill, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, respecting public opinion polls, to prohibit the publication of polls during the final 14 days of an election campaign. I am sure that all hon. members present will recognize that during the last two weeks of a campaign there is usually a barrage of polls. They come out of our ears. The weekend before election day in the last campaign there was a spat of polls by the Toronto Star, FP Publications, CBC and CTV, all with different predictions. The most respectable poll of them all, the Gallup poll, overestimated by 9 percent the Liberal vote in the last election.
1 would submit that these polls create confusion among voters and demoralize party workers, candidates, and volunteers. They not only have an effect on the parties and the electorate, but perhaps they also interfere with our democratic process. I appeal to hon. members of this House to be open-minded about polls and about my proposal. I would like very much to see this bill go to committee for further study.
There is a greater deal of interest in whether or not polls create unrealistic voting patterns. The purpose of this bill is to protect the freedom of information available to the voter and to protect our electoral democratic process. It is not censorship. Many journalists and social scientists share the concern that I am expressing today.
I believe in polls but I am concerned about the misleading emphasis that they create, particularly during an election and more particularly during the last two weeks of an election.
I believe in polls but I am concerned about the pretence of the pollsters. Do they really know what they are doing? Sometimes I wonder what they are dreaming of. I think we must put polls in their proper perspective. I am concerned about too much emphasis and the wrong emphasis on polls.
Canada Elections Act
Recent findings published on the "Watson Report" on March 17, 1980, showed that 92 per cent of the people interviewed who voted said they were not influenced by the polls. Eight per cent said they were influenced by the polls. 1 should like to remind the House that just five per cent may swing an election result one way or the other.
The program also stated that 66 per cent of those who voted and were interviewed believe that others were influenced by the results of the polls. But most people never read the results of polls; all they read are the newspaper headlines which, I submit, highlight the findings and predictions.
I have a very strong belief in our electoral process, Mr. Speaker. General elections are held to elect 282 members of Parliament from 282 different ridings. Elections are a process of our parliamentary system, but polls focus attention on party leaders, not the individuals who are running for election to Parliament. By asking questions such as "which leader would you vote for?", polls may contribute-although unconsciously-to another form of democracy, namely, leadership democracy or leadership by the one strong man.
Perhaps the leader of this party was the victim of this kind of polling in the last election, and I would even suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suffered the adverse effect of polls in the May, 1979, campaign. If that is so, the poll or pollsters may be misleading the public as to what an election is all about, and influencing them in deciding for whom they should vote. I should like to remind hon. members that only the people of Mount Royal, Oshawa, and Yellowhead can vote for the respective party leaders when they vote for a member to represent those ridings. To ask all respondents which of the three they would vote for is to place emphasis on a false concept of democracy. Ours is a parliamentary democracy in which 282 members are elected. That is what determines the democratic process, not a misleading question about an unwarranted concept of democracy.
Rather than reflecting the results of our parliamentary elections I believe that pollsters pretend or dream of direct democracy, electronic democracy, or instant democracy, like instant coffee. I think they would like to announce the results and predict the outcome of the elections prior to the writs being issued; 1 think they would like to predict the results and to indicate the results before they are in, say on the weekend before election day. I think they secretly dream that some day, with more sophisticated technology, it will be possible to poll everyone so that we will not even have to go to the polls on election day although, of course, that is the only poll that counts.
The relationship between polls and our parliamentary democracy should interest all members out of a public concern, if not out of personal interest. We must face the question of possible direct interference in the future of parliamentary democracy.
Ivor Thompson of Thompson, Lightstone and Company, a marketing research firm, made the following admission:
These polls would be more accurate in the American system, but in a parliamentary system, they don't really reflect who will end up in Ottawa.

June 20, 1980
Canada Elections Act
Pollsters may perceive and conduct interviews during an election as if it were a presidential election race rather than a parliamentary election. The newspapers that buy these polls and headline the results may contribute to the selling of a presidential candidate rather than informing the voter about the nationwide election. I think they do a disservice and actually create news rather than reporting it.
I should like to comment on the measure and meaning of polls, Mr. Speaker. I contend that they misplace emphasis and mislead the public by putting measurement before meaning, by putting quantity before quality. We must question whether pollsters know what they measure. It should be kept in mind that polls do not measure the electorate. At best they only measure a random sample of all Canadians, not a random sample of all Canadian voters. The undecided are distributed among the parties as if decided.
1 say that polls cannot predict election results even though they pretend, confidentially, that they can, days or weeks before an election. The margin of error in polls is too wide. Depending on the size of the sample, the margin of error may vary from 2 per cent to 4 per cent and the sample has to be doubled in order to reduce this. Gallup cautions that with the margin of error at 4 per cent the poll will be accurate 19 out of 20 times. I would point out, however, that they are not measuring 282 ridings so it does not give a clear indication of what is going to happen. Apart from the margin of error or accuracy, the polls do not translate these percentages into the number of seats for each party.
My point is, Mr. Speaker, that pollsters may not know what they measure. They may measure or question an individual in his role as consumer rather than as citizen or informed voter. I think polls have some real impact upon voters. Voters may decide to stay at home, for instance, if one party is shown to have a very significant lead. A voter may be of the opinion that there is no use voting because the other side is going to win anyway. Volunteers working for parties, whether they be Liberal, New Democratic or Conservative, may be buoyed by the results of the polls or they may be deflated. This may affect the strategy of that campaign organization. It may make them focus on different things. That, in turn, does affect the voter. As a direct result that can happen.
With respect to third parties, a poll which indicates an increase in opinion for a third party-in this case it would be the New Democratic Party-would have a negative effect on that very third party because the polls would indicate that a minority government would be elected. Therefore voters would decide they were not going to vote for the third party but would rather vote for the one that has a chance of forming the majority government. I think that is wrong.
Clearly I think we have to limit the polls and their influence on the electorate in Canada. 1 submit that polls influence the journalist, the man who is interviewing the various candidates. If there is a poor showing in the polls, the journalist will lose interest because he knows that when he writes the copy that
that copy will not be printed in the newspaper under his byline. What he wants is his byline, and he does not then focus on the issues but on the polling results. In my opinion that is detrimental to the democratic process and the system under which we operate in Canada. There is already a real danger that newsmen and newspapers cover our parliamentary election as if it were a presidential race.
I submit also that polls are inaccurate because they only reflect a moment in time. They are like a snapshot. In the meantime, between the measuring and the taking of the polls, other greater events may have outdated the results.
During the May, 1979, election a CBC poll was conducted by Carleton University in which interviews took place between April 30 and May 10. They were published on May 15, but the TV debate among the leaders occurred in between. This then would not have given an accurate picture of what the polls were actually saying. I am not against polls if there were time to validate the methodology of polls. A last weekend blitz or barrage of polls is dangerous because no one can check the validity or the accuracy of these polls. Instead this would allow everyone time to concentrate on the issues, on the policies and on what the candidate is saying rather than on the polls. That would be what the news is, not the poll itself.
1 am not against polls, just the publication during the final two weeks. My Polish friend is going to speak on this subject and that is why I say I am not against Poles. I would like him to know that. I am not against polls, just the publication during the final two weeks. I am not advocating censorship or a board of censors. What I propose is not something new, it has been proposed before. There is a lot of support for this. It warrants a discussion and it warrants a committee looking at the issues. The present Canada Elections Act already prohibits publication of advertising and polls on election day or even the day before an election.
I would like to see the results of public opinion polls banned for 14 days prior to election day. I am suggesting that it be done to safeguard the democratic process, and to permit the electorate a free, unhindered choice. 1 am proposing that this prohibition be extended to two weeks, or 14 days, for polls in the light of potential interference in our parliamentary democratic electoral process.


Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-208 sponsored by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). The purpose of his proposed amendment to the Canada Elections Act is to prohibit the publication in any manner, during the 14 clear days preceding the time that polls are closed in an electoral district in which an election is being held, of the result or purported result of a poll of the political opinions of electors in relation to the election. This is totally unacceptable. It is an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian electorate, and is a denial of their right to information about themselves.
At first glance it seems rather shocking to see such a proposal to muzzle the press, and to deny information to
June 20, 1980

people, coming from a member of the Conservative party, a party which has been an energetic champion of the cause of freedom of information. It is interesting that this comes when that party is out of office, and it is apparently now in the best interests of the country. However, members of that party have not been known for their consistency.
I note that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates), who is quite a guiding light in his party, and one who is trying to assist his leader in many ways, has sponsored Bill C-262 which would prohibit the publication of the results of opinion polls for the entire election period. That may be a little sterner stuff, but I think the real problem of what we are talking about here is that such a bill really does not treat the Canadian people with much respect. I think it more or less implies that they are like lemmings, that they are like sheep, or like buffalo out on the prairies stampeding in one direction, and that direction is whichever way the polls seem to be blowing.
These fears for the ignorance and gullibility of the electorate for only two weeks do not make much sense to me. I am reminded of the phrase by Franklin D. Roosevelt that fear is nothing but fear for themselves, and he should have known. In 1936 there was a very famous poll conducted during the U.S. presidential election, which showed that Alf Landon would thump Franklin Roosevelt. What in fact happened was that Roosevelt thumped Landon, but the Literary Digest only consulted people who subscribed to the magazine, and in the middle of the depression the only people who could afford magazine subscriptions were all Republicans. Not too long after that the Literary Digest went out of business.
One can only hope that this House will give this bill the treatment it so richly deserves which was meted out to similar bills sponsored by the hon. gentlemen from Cumberland-Colchester North and Burnaby-Richmond-Delta in the first session of the Thirtieth Parliament. Both bills, C-213 and C-404 respectively, would have prohibited the publication of the results of opinion polls during an election, as is proposed by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester in this session.
I might note that a very distinguished member of this House, no less a distinguished member than yourself, Mr. Speaker, said, and I will quote from the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for Tuesday, April 13, 1976, as follows:


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Well, if you were to try to do it on a national basis, you would have the kind of thing where the Detroit paper would do a poll on Canada and publish it in Detroit. The United Kingdom tried to do this and they had it from Radio Luxembourg, beamed at the United Kingdom, back and forth. I just do not think it is enforceable. And, while I do not like opinion polls, and while 1 understand why someone presented the bill, and I wish I could think of a good, legitimate, valid reason why I could achieve the same result, I have to say, deep in my heart, I think it is wrong.
That is the end of the quote from yourself, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it is in order to bring the occupant of the chair into the debate.
Canada Elections Act


David P. Smith: The point is well taken. I was just reading from the minutes of a committte. The point that was raised in that committee is a good point. What would happen if a Detroit radio station decided to make public the results of a poll done in Canada? With the techniques we now have, with these discs you could have an Atlanta television station braodcast the results of a poll. People all across Canada could have their discs aimed at some satellite and get the results. Are we going to try to stop this? It raises rather horrendous scenes.
You can picture people in eastern Europe huddled beside their radio with the lights out, or turned down very low, listening to the "Voice of America", waiting for the police to break down the door. I can think of many movies of the second world war where the Gestapo would storm in and find somebody with the earphones on. Is that the sort of thing we are going to do?
Once we start muzzling the press and denying the press the right to publish information, where do you stop?
I understand the motivation behind the bill presented by the hon. member, but it is a very slippery slope. Once you start that sort of process, I do not think there is any guarantee that it will not creep away and creep away and eat into very fundamental and precious rights. We have always had a free press in this country.
What would happen if somebody took a poll and we had a version of a Hyde Park corner in this country? Sometimes if you go to Toronto City Hall on a Sunday afternoon you see somebody on a soap box. You see the same at Allen Gardens and a few places in Toronto where there are corner orators. Are you going to extend the bill to preclude somebody from taking a poll himself and standing up on a soap box to announce it?
Where do you draw the line? The final week ban on publication of poll results involves a clear and obvious abridgement of freedom of expression. It would restrict individuals, the press, magazines, radio and television, for a crucial seven-day period. In the language of journalistic ethics it would flagrantly and without any question abridge the public's right to know. If a late change in public sentiment were under way, this rule would require that knowledge of the change be withheld from the general population. The bill's sweeping demand, it should be noted, would withhold all polls, those accurately reflecting the trend as well as those that might in one way or another be seriously misleading.
Look at the results of the last election. Does anyone think that the results were seriously affected by the polls? Certainly the polls were broadcast far and wide. The voters in western Canada were not influenced very much by them if they believed the polls which indicated that the Liberal party would do well in eastern Canada. It did not cause a stampede toward the Liberals on the prairies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It caused a stampede the other way.


David P. Smith: Perhaps if anything it did cause some weakening of our support. Look at the polls. They were not all saying the
2344

June 20, 1980
Canada Elections Act
same thing. The CTV poll, the CBC poll, Carleton university poll, and the Toronto Star polls were not giving the same amounts, but they were all indicating the same direction, and the direction was that the Liberals were going to win. In fact they did win.
What would happen, for example, if we were to ban polls just during the last two weeks? The Ken Taylor "Iran incident" caused the Tories to think that this might be their salvation, that it might turn things around. Anyone working in the campaign in Toronto during that election who talked to a Conservative worker knows that this gave them a real shot in the arm, a real flow of adrenalin. They could hardly wait for the next poll to come out. They felt that somehow a twist or a change in their fortunes would be indicated as a result of that Iranian incident.
Would we deny them the hype or the adrenalin or the good morale that would result from an incident that might happen toward the end? Are we to say that during the first part of the election when something great happens, the polls will reflect it and you can let the effect of that be indicated on the electorate and allow them like lemmings to go in that direction, but that cannot happen in the last two weeks? If that were the case they probably would have asked Ken Taylor to get out of there two or three weeks earlier so that there would be time for the polls to reflect the upsurge in their fortunes. This is the ridiculous sort of thing this legislation could trigger.
One point that was raised by the hon. member for Athabasca was the way in which knowledge of how the mood of the country was going would affect the decision of a voter. Somebody who may feel strongly about a majority government might like to know if one of the two major parties had a better chance to form a majority government than the other. Somebody might prefer one of the two major parties, but actually liked minority governments. If he thought the NDP had a chance of holding the balance of power, he would vote for them, but only if they were going to hold the balance of power. I do not see anything wrong with that. That is valid is informaton. Why should we deny the electorate that information?
The electorate, if anything, in terms of knowledge of politics, elections and the issues, are increasingly becoming more sophisticated. I do not think we need to stop up their ears so they cannot hear information they always had a right to have because somehow their minds are going to be tainted and they will go off and do something they would not otherwise do.
If somebody was very concerned about having majority government and wanted to know which party had the best chance of forming one, he could do his own poll. However, the results would only be relevant in his own riding, and his riding might be going in the direct opposite direction of the rest of the country. When we have such a spread-out country, almost
5,000	miles long, it is valid for a person in one part of the country to want to know how people in the other parts of the country feel. That is valid.
Our party will take its chances on the impact that such information will have on the electorate. I do not think the
possibility that somebody's vote, and I do not think it is very many people, may in fact be determined on how the mood of the rest of the country is going, and cause everyone to react in the same way. The results, particularly in the area of the country west of Winnipeg, in the last election will indicate that. If there was a buffalo stampede out there, it was not in our direction. It was in the opposite direction, notwithstanding the fact that the polls and the direction of the polls were well known.
Another interesting question that arises is the difference between the work of a political commentator, of a syndicated columnist, of a magazine writer, and the work of a pollster. Let's assume a rough equivalence in terms of talent and sensitivity on the part of the two. Are we going to say that a political commentator with a column in newspapers across the country, who can say he has been talking to a lot of people and it is pretty clear what the mood of this country is, and the Liberals are going to win this election or the Conservatives are going to win this election, cannot do that? People respect his judgment. They say that if Lynch, Fisher, Fotherington, Regenstreif say that, and he goes up on the mountain and gets it in tablets of stone, it must be true. If that is the information they are looking for, they certainly will believe Mr. Lynch or Mr. Fisher. Are we going to say to them they cannot be writing columns like that in the last two weeks of an election campaign? The bill does not purport to do that. But what is the difference?
If people are so easily influenced by what authoritative people may say about the mood of the country, rather than read polls by Martin Goldfarb or Peter Reigenstrief they will just read columns by Charles Lynch and Doug Fisher. And we all know how authoritative they are. They may differ from time to time, but so do the opinions of the pollsters. They are not always identical. That is another problem you get into if you follow this route.
I would like to refer to a statement by Mr. Lynch in a column he wrote on March 18 of this year. It was entitled "Effects of Polls Overshadow Roles." One sentence in that column really says it all:
Polls convey accurate information. Hence, those of us who are committed to freedom of information must support publication of the polls.
Such is clearly not the position of the sponsor of the bill before us, a member of the Conservative party, the party which is well known for its championship of freedom of information. We certainly find them in a paradoxical situation here with all the polls which have come out, particularly in the last election. I am sure there were many more polls taken in that election than in any previous election in Canadian history.
The New Democratic Party, the third party in the House, has more members than it ever had before, and I am sure it was never more clear to the Canadian public that the NDP had no chance whatsoever of becoming the government. However, the polls did not, unfortunately, stop the people of this country from returning that party with more members than it
June 20, 1980

has ever had. So there is no statistical evidence to show that the people are fooled by polls.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the party which champions freedom of information should suddenly want to muzzle the press and deny the Canadian people the information they have always had. They want to put us all into the situation of people behind the Iron Curtain; we should huddle beside our radios late at night, turn on the news from Detroit, turn off the lights so the RCMP will not break down the doors, and get the news of the latest polls to find out what is happening in Canada. As sure as I stand here today, that is what would happen if this bill were to pass. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the measure will not pass.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure and I congratulate the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) for bringing the bill forward and for the very responsible position he has taken in the contents of the bill, as well for his very well-reasoned speech.
I must say I was disappointed with the previous speaker who attempted to suggest, within the context of the motion, that it is a denial of freedom of speech. It is not a case of muzzling the press at all. As a matter of fact there are many journalists who have reservations about the way in which polls are conducted in this country and the degree of accuracy they reflect. The difference between reporting polls and talking about a person who wants to express an opinion on the outcome of an election is that polls are perceived to have some scientific or technical connotation to them, something done in a professional and scientific manner in which an adequate and accurate expression of opinion has evolved through the process of a survey. But we know, Mr. Speaker, that many of these surveys are quite inaccurate.
I certainly support the measure and I hope hon. members will see fit to send this proposal to committee for consideration. The member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) forgot to mention that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when the Speech from the Throne was introduced, said we would be looking at ways and means of improving the electoral process. Surely this is one area of reform which should be considered by a committee of this House, because there are different views held. As a matter of fact there are members on the other side of the House who share the views of my hon. friend from Athabasca. In The Citizen of June 20, 1980, there is an article entitled "MP Against Polls During Elections". It says:
A Liberal member of Parliament has called for a ban on the publication of public opinion polls during election campaigns.
Gilbert Parent, MP for the Ontario riding of Welland told the annual meeting of Central Canada's radio and television journalists Thursday that polls shouldn't be published in the month before voting day. He said during a panel discussion polls adversely influence voters and can be manipulated.
The man across the way who has just spoken with all the wisdom and expertise of the collective view of that group over there has certainly not polled his members, because there are many members on that side with whom I have discussed this question personally who have reservations about polls.
Canada Elections Act
It is really unfair for a member, in spite of his strong position on any particular issue, to suggest that the collective wisdom of this House is not a better balance than the collective wisdom of a few of his cohorts for whom he speaks. Nevertheless I share the view of my hon. friend from Athabasca and of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent) that polls can interfere with the orderly democratic process.
One of the reasons we have polls-and this was alluded to by the member for Athabasca-is that there are some people who are over-anxious and who want to know beforehand what the outcome of an election will be. The journalists and pollsters take great pleasure in attempting to predict the outcome of an election beforehand, and I think that in the process they can distort voting patterns of individuals and of groups of individuals.
What is more disconcerting is that we are increasingly being bombarded by various types of polls, conducted with varying degrees of expertise; indeed, some lack any scientific method in the approach taken. As a result there is, I think, an increasing tendency for greater inaccuracy. This can cause confusion in the minds of the electorate, and I certainly find this to be unhealthy. As hon. members know, politics these days is a pretty complex game without making it more confusing by carrying out surveys of opinion which may or may not reflect what is actually factual.
The point I want to make is that when there is doubt as to the accuracy of a professional group of pollsters there is certainly even more room for doubt with regard to surveys and polls conducted by those who are not classified as professionals-I would classify them as amateurs. For example, we only have to look at the last election. A Gallup poll published just prior to the election indicated 48 per cent would vote Liberal, 28 per cent would vote Conservative, 23 per cent would vote NDP, and 2 per cent would vote otherwise. Well, that indicated there would be a 20-point spread between the Conservatives and the Liberals on the basis of the poll findings. The final result showed there was only a ten-point spread. That is a tremendous and gaping inaccuracy, Mr. Speaker. The final result was 43.9 per cent Liberal, 33 per cent Conservative, 19.8 per cent NDP, and 1.6 per cent Social Credit. I submit that this is a tremendous inaccuracy, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the reading of a survey such as this which is done in a very professional way, I am told.
There is no question, as has been pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Athabasca, that there is room for doctoring and manipulation, and I suggest that that constitutes a very unhealthy intrusion into the democratic process. My friend across the way quoted Charles Lynch. He quoted a section which would bolster his argument, but I believe as well-and this is the other point I want to make-that there can be a built-in bias in any poll that is taken. Mr. Lynch makes reference to that fact-and I quote from the Montreal Gazette of March 18, 1980-when he states:

June 20, 1980
Canada Elections Act
In their efforts to convey information, the pollsters frequently oversimplify and create at least the impression of prior bias.
Prior bias is an essential ingredient in opinion journalism, and as a political columnist I'd be lost without it. But the polls have developed to a point where they have more influence than those of us who seek to provoke interest and discussion by offering comment on political events.
Of course if there is a bias and an inaccuracy-and as the hon. member for Athabasca indicated, there is really no way of checking that three or four days before an election is held- there can be a disruptive effect upon the outcome of an election, and I believe that is wrong and does constitute an infringement upon the orderly process of parliamentary democracy.
In an article on Tuesday, May 6, 1980, in The Globe and Mail the very famous Goldfarb talked about the ability to manipulate. He used the word "massage", and I quote:
We ask people questions, then we take the data and massage it to make it mean a lot more than they intended. We are looking for insights or clues. We supply the figures, but we also come up with . .. interpretation-
That really suggests to me that it is not an exact science. It is a science which can be misleading and manipulative. As far as 1 am concerned, it does not and should not have a place in our parliamentary process during a time when people want to assess and judge the pros and cons of political parties, leaders or positions.
The hon. member for Athabasca also pointed out the fact that in polls there is a tendency to single out leaders, individuals, or certain issues and that in the whole process the individual member of Parliament who is running for office in a given constituency is nothing but a glorified door-knocker. 1 think it does tend to take away from the importance of the individual member of Parliament.
1 suppose it is fair to say that, if we were to believe the polls, the late right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert would never have been the prime minister because the polls said he could never win. Of course I can only conclude by saying that the late and great Mr. Diefenbaker, who was a great friend of this House, had an opinion of polls. He suggested that only dogs knew how to treat "poles" at election time. In many respects there are some of us in this House who share that view because of their record in the past. We believe that this measure and this issue should be brought to the attention of the House and considered by a committee. I was very surprised that the spokesman for the Liberal party pretty well closed the door on that opportunity, because if we are looking for a process of electoral reform and improving the election process, this surely is a measure we should look at very carefully and seriously.
Let us at least analyse it. Let us not just close the door and suggest that what we are doing and what we are allowing to happen is right. Let us at least be bold enough to say that there are some concerns and some expressions of opinion both in favour and against the issuance of polls just prior to an election. Let us look at this. Let us have some expert witnesses put forward their cases, and then we could have a clear and informed hearing on the issue. Members of Parliament could debate the pros and cons. This bill would provide the opportunity and avenue for that to occur, and 1 earnestly solicit the
support of all hon. members to ensure that that process takes place.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not going to take very long, but I want to place on the record the fact that 1 dislike very much the conditions of this bill. I listened to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), and as he spoke I had the impression that he had considered his arguments seriously and developed them well, but I think he missed the point.
I do not like the underlying suspicion of voters which rests behind this bill, and 1 do not like the underlying attack on the freedom of our press.
I would like to express my opinions a little more positively, if I may. I believe that voters form their opinions logically and that voters have their reasons for forming their opinions, and 1 believe that polls tell us the score. They are not the score itself. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) spent a little time talking about the accuracy of these devices and about their reliability, and I toss back at him the idea that, if the scoreboard is wrong, that does not change the score.
1 would like to quote, if 1 may, from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of April 1, 1980. I think the paper put the issue into some perspective. It said:
That issue is the control of information-
The issue in this kind of bill.
-which should be shunned by Parliament as an invasion of citizens' rights. The public is entitled to have all information possible about public affairs and, if a difference can be made, it is above all entitled to that information at election time ... What is the issue here is an attempt to have Parliament decide what is accurate and what is inaccurate in the field of public information. The taking of this step would be very dangerous interference with the norma! flow of such information. The decision as to accuracy can properly only belong to the public.
A leading Montreal pollster, Yvon Corbeil, has said that studies have shown time after time that polls have almost no net effect on voting patterns, and I agree with that.
I would like to try to put this bill into a little bit of perspective. Please note that it does not try to stop polls, simply their publication. If polls are so pernicious, why would we want them to continue in the midst of an election when our party planners and our leading politicians would have access to the information and would be forming decisions, but the public would be denied that information? Allan Frizzell of Carleton University raised an interesting point along this line. 1 will quote him directly:
What they are saying is "We want to know what is going on but we don't want you to know what is going on."
Stifling polls limits our freedom to take a look at ourselves and to understand how we collectively make a decision. It curtails the proper process of an election. It does not help the understanding of an election; it clouds it. The assumption that we are operating on with this bill is that polls change the vote totals through some kind of bandwagon effect instead of simply reflecting popular sentiment.
Any pollster will tell us that his poll is an historic document. It takes one dot in time and measures public opinion at that
June 20, 1980

time. It does not try to project or, as was stated earlier, to massage unreasonably. I think elections are decided by very different forces-by tradition and party loyalty, by region, by leadership and, above all, by the issues of the day. 1 think these are the real motivations.
I think 1980 was a typical election in that respect. In my riding opinion polls did not change the dislike of my voters for the 18-cent oil excise tax. It did not change the dislike of the voters in my riding for the failure of the government of the day to provide the mortgage tax credit scheme or the failure of the government of the day to provide some kind of new economic order. It was the government of the day that failed, not the opinion polls.
I suggest to the author of the bill that he has thought out his ideas carefully, but he should go back to them. If he does not like polls, perhaps he does not like their results. The simple answer for all of us is that perhaps we should do a better job and change the results. If the author of the bill considers this an abuse of the system, perhaps he should reconsider and examine whether we are afraid of a technique which tells us about ourselves and because of that fear he is ready to stifle a more fundamental liberty. In my judgment the best road to follow is to expand our information, to let this bill disappear without any further discussion, and to keep on with our efforts to broaden our understanding of ourselves instead of trying to stifle our understanding of ourselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon on this abomination now before the House. It is an abomination, Mr. Speaker, that one should have the gall to introduce Bill C-208 sponsored by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). This bill will prevent the publication of the results of opinion polls during the 14 days prior to a vote in any riding where an election is being held. The introduction of this bill, Mr. Speaker, shows a lack of respect for our democratic process and the Canadian electorate.

The usual reason given in defence of attempting to deny the public access to information which may be of interest, if not of assistance to them, is that the publication of the results of opinion polls, either at any time during an election period or during the last week or two before polling day, unduly influences the voting behaviour of the electorate. It is argued that the publication of the result of an opinion poll showing one party with a substantial lead will create a bandwagon effect in which the voters will flock to the leading party in a desire to be on the side of the eventual winner. That is nonsense. It is an argument usually made by parties and candidates who have lost elections. If they had won, there would be no mention of undue influences, only of how accurate the poll was and how
Canada Elections Act
perceptive the electorate were. Therefore it comes as no surprise that it has usually been Conservative members of this House who have introduced bills proposing the prohibition of the publication of the results of opinion polls.
[ Translation]
But where were all those voices last year and after May 22, 1979; where were those voices during the Thirty-first Parliament? They were all silent, Mr. Speaker. We did not hear any Conservative members talk about that, there were no motions or similar bills introduced.

The next argument of the supporters of bills such as Bill C-208 is that polls are inaccurate and therefore misleading, and that results should not be published in order to prevent the misleading of the electorate. 1 should like to refer to an article "Can We Believe the Polls?" It appeared in the February 13, 1980, issue of the Toronto Star and read as follows:
While as a nation we are not as poll happy as Great Britain, clearly the polls are becoming an increasingly important part of our political life. Although there are those who would like to ban or control the use of public opinion polls in election campaigns, political realists recognize that they are here to stay and that their use by politicians, journalists and academics alike is likely to continue to increase.
This raises the fundamental question: Can we believe what the polls tell us? The answer would seem to be a qualified "Yes".
Those who use (or misuse) the information provided by the polls often overlook the fact that all polls, regardless of how carefully they may be done, are subject to error. But unlike other types of "error" that we make in forecasting trends in the weather, the stockmarket, etc., the error in polls is precise, predictable and based on sound mathematical probabilities.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion issues a comment at the end of every report and points out that the figures given are not accurate and there is a margin of error of 4 per cent more or less in 19 out of 20 surveys it makes.

However, because a given poll is based on only one sample, there is no way to determine whether it is that one "bad" sample in 20. Therefore the probability of it being off by more than a certain percentage can only be estimated and the appropriate caution introduced in its interpretation, hence the standard Gallup statement. But how far out must an estimate be in order to be "bad"? This is determined by such things as the sample size, the methods used in organizing the survey, and the level of possible inaccuracy a client is willing to accept. The common Gallup level of plus or minus 4 per cent is quite commonly accepted and occurs frequently in nationwide random samples of about 1,000 respondents. While it is possible to reduce this somewhat by using larger samples, this is seldom done because it is simply too costly to justify the small gains in accuracy that are made. Conversely, very small samples become highly inaccurate and therefore are seldom used by reliable firms.
For these reasons most samples commonly used in Canadian polling have between 700 and 1,200 respondents. Larger sam-

June 20, 1980
Canada Elections Act
pies are generally used only when more detailed regional breakdowns are required as in the recent CBC poll. While the probable accuracy of a given poll is easily stated, the true meaning of the notion of accuracy is often overlooked once the appropriate disclaimer has been made. We can take, for example, the Gallup poll of last November which showed the Liberals jumping to a 19 per cent lead over the Conservatives and the NDP rising to 23 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


René Cousineau: That makes the member happy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a good note on which to end.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. [Translation]
It being five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(3), this House stands adjourned until Wednesday, June 25, 1980, at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 25, 1980