1962-11-29

Mr. Speaker:: Before commencing our proceedings this afternoon I crave the indulgence of the house to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished visitor to Canada. I am referring to Hon. Mrs. Golda Meir, Minister of Foreign Affairs for Israel. Mrs. Meir arrived yesterday in the course of a three day visit to Canada. I am sure that I am making myself the interpreter of all of us in the house when I extend to her our most courteous welcome and best wishes for a pleasant sojourn in Canada. I note with satisfaction that this week the weather in Ottawa is very acceptable.
May I, in addition, extend to her on your behalf our most sincere and heartfelt good wishes not only for herself but for her government and the people of her country. (Translation):
Before commencing our proceedings this afternoon, I would crave the indulgence of the house to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished visitor to Canada. I am referring to the Hon. Mrs. Golda Meir, Minister of Foreign Affairs for Israel.
We extend to Mrs. Meir our most courteous welcome on the occasion of her three day visit to Canada. May I, in addition, extend to her on your behalf a personal welcome and our most sincere and heartfelt good wishes, not only for herself, but for her government and the people of her country.
(Text):



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House,
Ottawa. November 29, 1962
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate 27507-3-135
chamber today, the 29th November, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General. (Translation):



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Georges Valade (Sf. Mary) presented the first report of the standing committee on privileges and elections and moved that the report be concurred in.
M. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before the motion is put I would ask that the report be read in accordance with the usual practice.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be done.
And the Clerk Assistant having read the report:


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(Text):


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, reference was made yesterday to the fact that today I would place before the house the views of the government in respect of the first two volumes of the Glassco report. I now do so. Only the other day we received the second volume, which contains reports numbered 5 to 11. An earlier volume, the first, was received and published in September before parliament opened. It is our expectation that three more volumes will be forthcoming within the next two or three months.
I want to say at once that on the basis of the volumes already issued, Mr. Glassco and his colleagues, Mr. Therien and Mr. Sellar, deserved thanks for the thorough and constructive job they have been doing. Impressed with the room for improvement in administration which the commissioners and their staff have found in various parts of the public service, I may say at once that the government intends to see that improvements are made both in organization and in management.
2128	HOUSE OF
Glassco Commission Report
As the house is aware members of the government, both in office and earlier in opposition, have been convinced that for a good many years there have been substantial areas of public administration where considerable and even large savings could be effected without injury to the public welfare. While in opposition we pressed for several years, without avail, for such a study to be made along the line followed in the United States by the commission headed by exPresident Hoover. The reports and recommendations completely justify, as we see it, the action taken in appointing this commission. To begin with, the government is in general agreement with the basic philosophy of the commissioners as expressed in the reports, and I expect that most of the recommendations they have submitted will be carried out and at the earliest possible date.
In the introduction to the first report it is stated that substantial economies had already been achieved and additional money saving proposals were being studied by departments and agencies. These developments are presently being assessed and will be reported to the house in due course. In other cases recommendations made by the commission have already been put into effect by particular departments and agencies on the responsibility of individual ministers since volume I was received.
Senator McCutcheon, Minister without Portfolio, has been designated by the government as the minister responsible for the appraisal and implementation of the royal commission's reports. He will have the assistance of a special cabinet committee as well as treasury board, to which he is being appointed for this purpose. He will also be able to call on the assistance and advice of public servants as required in the detailed consideration of the means of carrying out what the government decides should be done.
Volume I of the reports, which contains many proposals involving legislative changes or transfers of responsibility, is being carefully studied by ministers. Priority is being given to report No. 2 on financial management, in which there appear to be many detailed recommendations capable of early implementation. There are as well a number of recommendations concerning the form and nature of the estimates in the public accounts that will require some consideration by the public accounts committee of the house as well as by the government as a whole.
As I stated on November 12, the government does not plan to reach final decision on the major recommendations of the royal commission concerning the functions of treasury board and the civil service commission


until the further volumes of these reports have been received and studied.
The report on paper work and systems management contains many pointed suggestions for improvements in the work of departments, many of which are within the present jurisdiction of the departments themselves without any need for enabling legislation or specific cabinet directives.
We agree with the commissioners that the federal government should be aggressive in the development of administrative techniques and efficient management practices so as to secure the substantial savings which would result. The commission has placed much emphasis on the need for training in management and administrative techniques and practices as a prerequisite for the attainment of these economies. We have accordingly asked the civil service commission to make an assessment as a matter of urgency of the persons skilled in this work presently available in the public service, and of the extent and nature of the training which would be needed to make possible the earliest inauguration of the programs required to fill the gaps.
The government expects individual ministers and departments to consider and implement on their own responsibility many of the detailed suggestions in this particular report on paper work and systems. It should be stressed that in many instances the commissioners have cited practices in a particular department or agency merely by way of illustration of a principle which is of general application. The reports will therefore be closely studied by all departments and agencies whether or not they have been particularly singled out for specific mention.
In the second volume, report No. 5 on real property and report No. 6 on purchasing and supply each includes major recommendations on the transfer of responsibilities which the government will consider shortly. We have, however, taken action on two recommendations. Immediate effect is being given to the commission's recommendation that the Department of Public Works develop and maintain a complete inventory of real property owned and leased by the federal government and its agencies. I would add that substantial progress has already been made with this. All departments, including the armed forces, have been directed to undertake a thorough going review of their stores control and buying practices in the light of the commission's comments and recommendations.
Report No. 7 on transportation makes a number of recommendations which are now being considered by ministers in particular departments concerned. We have decided to set up a traffic advisory group as the commission has proposed to advise on the move-

ment of government supplies and to carry out the duties suggested by the commission.
Report No. 8 on telecommunications poses complex problems concerning several ministers who are now reviewing these proposals. It is already clear, as the commissioners emphasized, that additional expert assistance is required in the co-ordination of government needs in the telecommunications field and the formulation of long range plans. We have accordingly decided to establish forthwith a central telecommunications planning unit in the Department of Transport for this purpose.
My colleagues and I see merit in the proposals in report No. 9 on printing and publishing. In particular we agree that outside printing firms should be given a better opportunity to compete on a fairer basis with the government printing bureau. I am given to understand one of the reports to be submitted in a few weeks time will have some bearing on the proposed role of the Queen's publisher, and we are therefore deferring action on the recommendation to establish such office until we see this further report.
As far as report No. 11 on legal services is concerned, I do not anticipate any difficulty in dealing promptly with the recommendations made.
As to report No. 10, on the make or buy problem, I may say that this raises issues of government policy as well as suggestions for a number of specific applications. In general I am in accord with the approach which underlies this report. It appears that there is much which can be done along the lines envisaged. As a first step the government has accepted the recommendation on page 330 that new facilities of the kind discussed be not established or old ones replaced without thorough consideration being given to the use of other government shops or outside suppliers. This has already been done in the case of the dominion lighthouse depot, to which the commission refers at page 328. Furthermore the government is asking all these departments and agencies to review the detailed proposals in this make or buy report and to submit their views and proposed actions on them.
Sir, this is, in general, a summary of the reports so far received, and is indicative of the action already taken and to be taken by the government. With leave of the house, as further progress is made statements can be made to the house, which I am sure is very interested in assuring the maximum of efficiency at all times in government administration, and also that degree of economy which, in no way restricting efficiency, can be achieved.
27507-3-135i
Glassco Commission Report


Mr. Walter L. Gordon (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to comment on the statement of the Prime Minister about the reports of the Glassco commission, I should first like to join him in thanking the commissioners for the work they have been doing. Perhaps I might be permitted to say a special word of thanks to the chairman, who was my partner in our profession for over 20 years and whose son happens to be the father of my grandson. When I say that he was my professional partner for over 20 years, I should not like anyone to think that he and I agreed on political questions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have some personal interest in the implementation of recommendations contained in the reports of royal commissions and in the long delays which frequently ensue before anything is done about them. I say this with some feeling, because it is now six years since the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects made certain recommendations that I noticed found their way into the speech from the throne at the beginning of this session. I hope it will not take as long a time as six years to do something effective about some of the recommendations of the Glassco commission. This does not mean that we on this side of the house endorse all of the recommendations of the Glassco commission; on the contrary, we have reservations about a number of the changes which are proposed. But we have been shocked, as I am sure the public has been shocked, by the evidence of waste, extravagance and inefficiency which has been reported by this commission.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: When did they start?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One representative from each party is entitled to speak at this time, and I think we are quite prepared to hear him, uninterrupted.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be quite unfair to interpret these reports as a reflection upon the public officials who comprise the Canadian civil service, which is one of the best in the world. It is a serious reflection, however, on those who have been responsible for directing the work and the organization of the civil service, and I would remind hon. members that this has been the responsibility of the present government for almost six years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Winch:: And the Liberals for 22 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it would be instructive to remember that remarks following statements made on motions are not opportunities for political speeches, but that
2130	HOUSE OF
Glassco Commission Report they should be fair comment on what has been announced in the statement made. We are not into a sort of short term debate on this particular question.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not going to say that the comment is improper, but may I say that this is not an opportunity for a short run debate, and this applies to original statements made on motions.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: On a point of order, your observations may be correct but, with great respect, I would suggest to Your Honour that these observations should have first been directed to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the remarks I have made have indicated my thinking in this regard, and I have needed no reminder from the hon. member. I have noticed a tendency of late in this regard, but I think with the appropriate attention and good will of hon. members we will come back to what is the standard practice in this house.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I did not intend and was not intending to indulge in anything that could possibly be interpreted as a political speech. I was about to suggest, however, that this government, which has been in office for some five and half years, has been accused of being indecisive, uncertain and incompetent, and I suggest that the Glassco commission has produced some damning evidence to this effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am indeed surprised at the hon. member that after the observations I made-


Mr. Starr:: He has a low political mind.


Mr. Speaker:: -he should have so quickly departed from the spirit of motions.


Mr. Robichaud:: Why was the Prime Minister allowed to do so?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that one sin on top of another compounding the difficulties will improve the situation.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the Glassco commission has made some impressive estimates of the savings that could be achieved through better organization and the use of more modern techniques. The Prime Minister has told us that it will be the responsibility of the Minister without Portfolio to take these matters in charge and-these were not his words but I think this is the impression the Prime Minister gave-to drive them through to some conclusion. The Minister without Portfolio in his former capacities has had some experience along these lines, and if I was not afraid that you would think I was transgressing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that


in these other spheres he has usually corrected things by effecting a change in management. The question that people will ask themselves in this instance is whether it is likely that this government, even if it is assisted by the new Minister without Portfolio, has the necessary energy, drive and determination to accomplish these reforms.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of our group-


Mr. Rouleau:: An expert in administration.


Guy Marcoux: -I wish to congratulate the members of the Glassco commission for the thorough study they have made of the public service and the government organization generally.
I was surprised to hear, a while ago, that only the Gordon commission had apparently brought forth proposals which were quite adequate, while, on the other hand, it appears that some exception is being taken to recommendations-


Guy Rouleau: That is not what was said.


Guy Marcoux: -made by other commissions. In fact, if the hon. member for Davenport did not say it, he implied that some of the Gordon commission's recommendations should have been adopted a long time ago. That is why it does seem strange to hear about one commission having been quite good and another much less so.
In view of the fact that, generally speaking, socialism is a very large government organization which is constantly spreading, I am convinced that the members of our group will support most of the points brought up by the Glassco commission.
Moreover, I feel that, within this parliament of minorities, all groups are united in saying that they wish to make government services more efficient and more economical for the Canadian people.
(Text):


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps with greater appropriateness than the hon. member for Davenport and probably, I might add plaintively, because my party has never been in power-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: And never will.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, hon. members can make any comments they like, but there are situations where one may be proud of the contribution one has made to one's country without the evil that some people have been guilty of in power. I join hon. members and

the people of Canada in expressing our horror at the waste which has been shown by this report. But I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we should not permit ourselves, by the exposure of these inefficiencies, to grab the Glassco report willy-nilly.
I respectfully submit that the report requires very careful study. It requires much more careful study than has been possible hitherto, at least for members of this house other than members of the government. I submit that when the Prime Minister says that the government generally accepts the philosophy and the general recommendations of the report, having studied as best I can what has so far been produced, I am at a loss to find precisely what that philosophy is unless it is found in the proposition that the public service must be run like big business without consideration of the political objectives of government as distinct from the objectives of ordinary big business, and without consideration of the obligation of government to the people as a whole as distinct from the obligation of a corporation only to its own stockholders. That seems to me to be the philosophy that runs through the report.
I plead with hon. members not to be blown into acceptance of the report by these exposures of inefficiency and waste. For example, there is a statement in the report somewhere to the effect-I give this merely as an example, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate what I have just said-that there ought not to be such a consistent use of the formal tender procedure. The Prime Minister has already informed us that some investigation will be made of the Queen's printer, and a greater opportunity for private printing presented. Now, I have not any objection if that is done in such a way as to avoid patronage and perhaps even greater waste than that of which the Queen's printer may be guilty. It is that kind of consideration that we urge be borne in mind.
With that in view, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that consideration be given by the government to establishing a special committee of this house to study these reports as they come forward and the proposals as they appear, so this parliament can deal with these proposals not when they all come down but one by one as they are developed on this very wide subject.
I cannot join with hon. members in welcoming the idea that the implementation of this report should be in the hands of the Minister without Portfolio who is a member in another place. In my respectful submission the implementation of the report should be in
Glassco Commission Report the hands of a minister of the crown who sits in this house and is answerable to the members of this house.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to hon. members also that they look at the report to see if there is any real value in the proposition that there be royal commissions from time to time to look into our civil service and the way in which we run our government. When you do that you lose three, four or five years during which the commission is appointed and another couple of years for the commission's investigation. We would recommend, for the consideration of the government, the setting up of some kind of budget bureau along the lines that they have in Washington, which would have the day to day oversight of what happens in the various departments and could bring improvements into being as the need for them is justified.
With those comments, I join with others in congratulating the members of the commission for a job of hard, intelligent investigation, even though we cannot at this point agree with those who would accept the recommendations in the way that has been suggested.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: May I
ask the Minister of National Defence if he can provide the house with the date that the 80 year supply of union suits was purchased by the government of Canada, as revealed in the Glassco report?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: In 1951-52.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps we might say recess is over, so let us get back to the business of the house. The hon. member knows his question was widely out of order.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
(Translation):
Following his statement to the effect that the government has entrusted Senator Mc-Cutcheon with the responsibility of implementing the recommendations made in the Glassco report, would the Prime Minister tell the house to whom the hon. members should direct their inquiries, if any, on that report?	[DOT]

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, questions addressed to the treasury benches will receive attention in every case.



AMENDMENT OF ACT TO PROVIDE FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question does arise out of the statement he made today regarding the implementation of the Glassco report. In view of the importance of employer-employee relationships in achieving efficiency, will the government, along with any other changes in the public administration that it may now be contemplating, bring in during this session amendments to the Civil Service Act to provide for collective bargaining throughout the federal public service?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that announcements regarding policy are not made in answer to questions on the orders of the day.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, following the question of privilege I raised yesterday in this house, I move today, seconded by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), that Mr. Jean Charpentier's article entitled:
The NATO Parliamentarians' Conference-
To he delegated to international conferences is often just a reward for well behaved members.
Published in the newspaper La Presse, on Tuesday, November 27, 1962, as well as Mr. Guy Cormier's article entitled, Parliamentary Delinquency also published in the newspaper La Presse, on November 28, 1962, be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections, for study and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am very sorry, the hon. member has introduced a motion, but. unfortunately, the articles referred to are not before the house.
Does the hon. member have with him copies of the newspaper issues in which those articles were published, so that the Chair may determine whether there is a question of privilege? At the present time there is nothing to indicate that such is the case. Does the hon. member have the articles in question?
[Mr. Lachance.)


Raymond Langlois: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Have they been tabled?


An hon. Member:: The Clerk has them, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond Langlois: I think the Clerk has them with him.


Mr. Speaker:: They have not been tabled. The articles in question must be tabled.
Now, according to the standing order, they have to be read. Will the Clerk please read them?
And the Clerk reads into the record:
The NATO Parliamentarians' Conference.
To be delegated to international conferences is often just a reward for well behaved members. By Jean Charpentier, Ottawa.
Always ill-prepared, often disinterested and sometimes without talent, Canadian parliamentarians make us feel ashamed of them at international conferences.
The Canadian contribution at the NATO parliamentarians' conference recently held in Paris was no exception to the rule. A certain number of delegates were not seen during the whole of the conference: having spent their nights in Pigalle, they slept by day. Perhaps it would have been better-
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: I was just wondering whether or not, in view of the fact that the articles in question have been tabled, it would be appropriate to adjourn this matter until tomorrow so that you, Mr. Speaker, could determine whether in your opinion the matter is of such a nature as to require to be sent to the committee in question for consideration. The reading of this article into the record will merely be perpetuating the alleged libelous statements. I believe the house would be willing to have you make a determination on the basis of an examination rather than fill the record with this story which, if found to be baseless, will none the less always be in the record of Hansard for quotation.


Mr. Speaker:: With regard to the proposal made by the Prime Minister, may I say that the Chair examined the article in question as a result of the representations made yesterday, and the Chair had reserved its opinion. We are at present following the procedure laid down; and conceivably, by leave of the house, the articles would not necessarily have to be read on this particular occasion.
In so far as deferring the matter until tomorrow is concerned, I think that is of no great consequence because, in the light of the citations and the rules applicable to matters of this kind, the Chair has come to the opinion that there is a prima facie case of privilege. It is then up to the house, under the circumstances, to determine what shall be done. If

Inquiries of the Ministry
there is an appropriate motion to take certain	-an article which appeared in La Presse
action, then the Chair will receive the motion on Tuesday, November 27, 1962, as well as for presentation to the house.	on Mr. Cormier's article entitled:


Raymond Langlois: I wonder if the Prime
Minister is trying to save paper, or if he actually wants to see justice done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no question at all of avoidance of the matter now. If the hon. member has a motion to make or if any other hon. member has a motion to make in this regard, such a motion will now be made or the matter will be dropped. Is there a motion?


Raymond Langlois: I propose that the Clerk of the House read the article, and I propose that it be sent to the committee on elections and privileges for further report and observation.
(Translation):


Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: May I
suggest to my colleague who has just asked that the articles be read, to reconsider his request and accept the suggestion made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), to leave it to the Speaker of the house to interpret the proposal.
As for the question of privilege under consideration, if we read into the official report the articles in question, we would also have to put the denial made by all members of the delegation to NATO and published in this morning's Globe and Mail, so that the good name of our delegates would not be unduly tarnished.


Mr. Speaker:: It was suggested at first that this article be referred to the committee on privileges and elections, but if this matter is taken up in the house for discussion of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Megantic, seconded by the hon. member for Trinity, if a written motion is tabled, it will be taken in consideration. Is there a written motion?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I handed a copy of the motion to one of the pages asking him to table it, and I think he did.
There seems to be some confusion about the written motion. Therefore, I shall redraft it and table it, or have the translation division send it to you. I did hand it to a page asking him to take it to the Clerk of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is moved by the hon. member for Megantic, seconded by the hon. member for Trinity, that the article by Mr. Jean Charpentier entitled:
The NATO Parliamentarians' Conference-
To be delegated to international conferences is often just a reward for well behaved members.
Parliamentary delinquency
-which appeared also in La Presse on November 28, 1962, be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for study and report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Raymond Langlois: I can spare the house the reading of the article on the understanding that the motion stands.
(Text):



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION RESPECTING PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I regret that I did not have the opportunity of giving him advance notice. In the light of the radio report in the C.B.C. news broadcast this morning, announcing a one cent increase in bread prices, has the government any proposals to offset this price raise with all its implications?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman being a member of the legal profession, as I understand-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I thought he was. Then I would say to the hon. gentleman there are limitations within which action can be taken in this regard, covered by the Combines Investigation Act. Means are available for action to be taken, but apart from saying that I am not suggesting that on the basis of his question he has established anything in the nature of a prima facie case.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: As a supplementary question, having regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister at Magog during the campaign which is as follows:
Fast, efficient, and drastic action will be taken against those using devaluation to up prices of goods
-what action does the Prime Minister intend to take?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not regard the question as a supplementary question. It is in the nature of provoking an argument, and certainly the answer will be argumentative. Therefore it is contrary to standing order 39.
2134	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



MEETING OF PARTY LEADERS TO PREPARE AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Thompson (Red Deer):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. A few days ago the Prime Minister stated that in order to speed up the work of the house he intended to call a meeting of the leaders of all parties to discuss or draw up a planned agenda. Would the Prime Minister now inform the house when he expects to call such a meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I said as soon as the Leader of the Opposition was available. I welcome him back, and at the earliest possible date this can be done.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister any late information to give the house with respect to the Indian-Chinese conflict?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have no further information at the present time, but we shall try to keep the house informed as the situation develops.


COLUMBIA RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a matter that is of very grave concern in British Columbia, and indeed throughout the whole of Canada. Yesterday I asked the minister about the possibility of putting the Columbia river treaty before a committee of the house or before the house itself, and the answer was that we would have to have "an agreement as well between the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia." Could the minister tell the house whether there was in fact agreement in principle on this draft treaty between the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia, before the agreement was signed in Washington?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there had been a joint committee on which the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia were represented. The terms of the treaty which was eventually signed in Washington had been agreed to by that committee including, of course, the members who were representing the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Fulton:: And the terms were also confirmed as agreeable by Mr. Williston in a letter to me.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Let us make sure they are supplementary questions. The hon. member for Kootenay East.


Howard Charles Green: And, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Public Works has pointed out to me, the terms were also confirmed as agreeable by Mr. Williston, one of the ministers from British Columbia who was on that joint committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In a letter to me.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On that very question, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Public Works, having just returned from a week in British Columbia, will know this is very serious. I want to get this straight. I would like to ask the minister why, if there had been agreement in principle between the two governments prior to the signing of the agreement in Washington, that agreement as such cannot be presented to parliament for ratification.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member in putting his question is asking for an argumentative answer.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It is in the way of an argument. I would ask hon. members to be careful about how they put questions. Did the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam have a supplementary question?


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs how soon the government intends to place the Columbia river treaty before the external affairs committee of the house.


Howard Charles Green: I think I explained that in the house either yesterday or the day before. Perhaps the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was not present.


Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the

Canadian government has been represented at recent discussions in the United States concerning the Columbia river treaty, and by whom?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I think I explained that also in the house either yesterday or the day before. I said there had been two series of talks on a non-commital, informal basis and that all the three governments had been represented, the government of Canada, the government of the United States and the government of British Columbia. The government of Canada was represented by the deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources, an official from the Department of Finance and one of the assistant under secretaries of the Department of External Affairs.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the rapid decision of the government to talk about implementing the recommendations of the Glassco commission, when will the government announce implementation of the report of the Mac-Pherson royal commission on transportation, which reported as long as 16 months ago?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, much of the implementation of that report will require legislative enactment by parliament. If only hon. gentlemen opposite would get ahead with the business we would be glad to introduce this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think if we avoided some of the argumentative sections of replies we might get into less difficulty.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister tell the house when he proposes, on behalf of the government, to take action with regard to the recommendations of the many other royal commissions which were appointed by this government since it came into office?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. gentleman to see the answer to the last question.
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forestry. Would the minister tell the house whether he intends to issue in French the bulletin No. 18, entitled "Grading hardwood logs for factory lumber" and No. 34, entitled "How to evaluate the quality of hardwood logs for factory"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, the hon. member very well knows that he cannot put questions concerning such and such bulletins published by such and such departments on the orders of the day.
(Text):



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Fisheries whether any action has been taken with respect to the international north Pacific fisheries commission recommendation to allow Japan to fish halibut in the eastern Bering sea and herring off the west coast of the Queen Charlotte islands.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add at this time to the answer I gave three or four days ago.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and I assure Your Honour that this has nothing to do with the Glassco report. In the December issue of the periodical "Wings in Space" there is an editorial by M. J. Seeley and an article by Air Marshal W. A. Curtis both relating to "Nuclear warheads-urgent Canadian defence requirement". Would the minister advise the Canadian public if the following statement is correct or erroneous-
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Right there I can tell the hon. member that his question is quite out of order. It is quite improper to ask a minister of the crown to comment upon a statement or article appearing in any publication which is not the direct responsibility of the minister.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, could I put my question in another way?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Trinity.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence if the following fact is not correct-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.. Speaker:: Order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him whether conventional weapons will nullify what is known as the dead man's fuse and, if not, what protection would Canada get to prevent atomic explosions taking place over or on our territory?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that two thirds of his question is of a hypothetical nature and is, therefore, not in order on orders of the day. There are, of course, only certain types of question which can be asked, and I should perhaps refer hon. members back to the guideposts we studied together on a previous occasion. We might do well to go back to them.



INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN COMMITMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the government to fulfil the commitment it made to NATO in 1958 when it undertook the strike attack role and the arming of CF-104 aircraft with atomic devices?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member well knows what the position has been in connection with this matter, and he well knows also that we have met all the commitments we have made to NATO.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Park-dale.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the critical time for decision-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member, when he prefaces his question with "Is it not a fact", is getting into an argumentative question inviting an argumentative answer from the minister. That is quite improper. I would ask the hon. member to look at paragraph 39 of standing orders-
[Mr. Speaker.!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I should like to rephrase my supplementary question, with your permission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will recognize the hon. member for Parkdale, and then the hon. member may rephrase his question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Was November 1 the critical day for signature by Canada of a bilateral agreement with the United States which would permit the supply of atomic weapons to the air division in Europe in time for the first squadron to be equipped by May 1, next, as planned by the supreme commander?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as I know there are no critical dates in connection with this matter.



REPORTED REQUEST TO U.S. FOR ADDITIONAL F-101 PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Did the Canadian Department of National Defence request the United States air force or government to supply additional F-101 Voodoo planes and, if so, was this request turned down?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry, but I did not hear what came after the word "additional".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, my question is based on an article in the Financial Post of December 1. Did the Canadian government request the United States government or air force to supply to the Canadian air force additional F-101 Voodoo aircraft for use by the Canadian air force and, if so, was this request turned down?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This whole matter of the supply of 101's, as the hon. gentleman I think is aware, was a matter of a three cornered deal which involved defence sharing and mutual aid as far as certain European countries are concerned, and the manufacture in Canada of F-104 aircraft. That has been the situation with regard to these planes.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he would make a statement and give immediate attention to the

statement by Coroner Dr. Morton Shulman of Toronto accusing the federal Department of Transport of having ignored-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I would indicate to the hon. member that it is not proper to ask a minister of the crown to comment in any way upon a statement made by some person outside of this house who is not under the responsibility of the minister.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether in view of the recent discussion on the system and standard of life jacket approval in this country he would undertake to bring this matter under immediate review?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I shall have a short statement to make on this matter tomorrow.
(Translation):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister inform the house whether it is true that an appropriation of $300,000 has already been voted for the construction of an airport terminal in Bagotville?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question of detail which should not be put on the orders of the day.
(Text):



ROYAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister advise the house if it is the intention of the government to introduce during the present session legislation to implement the recommendations of the Rand commission on coal, whose report has been in the hands of the government for over two years and has since been further studied by an interdepartmental committee?
(Translation):


Hon. Paul Martineau (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the hon. member that the government has the report he mentioned under consideration. However, since there is an established practice concerning the announcement of government policy, it will apply in this case.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: You had two years to consider it.
(Text):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingate):: Yesterday the Minister of Labour was good enough to say he would find out and let me know when the translation of the Gill report was first undertaken.


Michael Starr: 1
have made inquiries regarding the Gill committee report, and I am advised that it was sent to the translators on August 27 and that all French copy is now at the printers. All the galleys have been sent back. They were received only yesterday and are now being put into page form. I am also advised that the report is being advanced as quickly as possible.


Mr. Paul Tardif (Russell):: What year was that in? A supplementary question; the minister did not mention the year in which this was started, 1961 or 1962.


Michael Starr: The hon. member probably forgets himself. He is not on the board of control now.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: Can I ask
a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the translation work was put into the hands of the translators in the month of August, is the minister now in a position to tell the house whether or not he has been reading this report in English so there would be a minimum of delay with regard to action by the government, if action might conceivably be expected with regard to this very important matter?


Michael Starr: I have not been reading the report because I have not received it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are some undue sensibilities this afternoon on both sides of the house, and I would ask all hon. members to review their attitudes somewhat toward the orders of the day.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I wish to ask the Minister of Labour a question. I did not hear his reply regarding the Gill report.


Mr. Churchill:: Read it in Hansard.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Can I have the floor, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor.


Mr. Peters:: He does not know what to do with it.
2138	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Has the minister not in fact had an opportunity to peruse a draft copy of the Gill committee report, that is, the report on the committee set up to investigate the unemployment insurance fund?


Michael Starr: I am horrified that the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Kootenay East are intimating I have seen this report. I have not seen any report from the Gill committee, and what I have stated are the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going out on the limb Your Honour is so ready to saw off, and I will ask the Secretary of State if he could get the Queen's printer to take on additional staff to complete the Gill report so the Minister of Labour could then read it.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister tell the house why some farm credit loans already agreed to are not immediately followed by the loans themselves?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I refer the hon. member to standing order No. 39, and he can see quite easily that the question is out of order.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: In view of the fact that the question period guideposts have resulted in close to a thousand questions appearing on the order paper, is it the intention to give a prize to the person who poses the one thousandth question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the Chair is not deemed to be out of order here, perhaps it might be deemed better to give a prize for some intelligent questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege, I am sure that on further reflection Your Honour will want to withdraw the comment which you made-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -a comment which it is most inappropriate for the Chair to make.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would also address this point to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. A question in this regard is not usually addressed to the Chair. The hon. member for Skeena had addressed his question to the Chair in this regard.


Frank Howard: I did not.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not in keeping-


William Arnold Peters: We should have a vote on the Speaker. It is about time we did.


Mr. Speaker:: There may have been some sort of susceptibility this afternoon, for people on all sides of the house have been a little touchy and as a result it may be that the Chair has been likewise. I do not want to offend the susceptibilities of any hon. members; I feel that they too know what questions should be asked and that there is an injunction against asking trivial questions. If the Chair was unduly sharp with regard to what was considered a trivial question, then I apologize to all hon. members of the house. But may the Chair, in return, seek the cooperation of all hon. members and ask them to avoid trivial questions. The Chair will not be provoked.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I am quite in agreement with your statement. I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and ask him whether either he himself or any of his ministers had the opportunity to peruse the Glassco commission report before it was tabled in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that when the Glassco report was delivered to me I naturally perused it.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice whether there is any information for this house with respect to the recent R.C.M.P. narcotic raid in Montreal.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, these raids and arrests by the police yesterday in Montreal were the result of investigations conducted by the police into well known and suspected counterfeiters, who it also appears were involved in the theft of some codeine phosphate in an armed hold-up on August 3, 1962.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Public

Works; I know you will recognize its urgency. Does the minister expect to be in a position to introduce an amendment to the National Housing Act before the Christmas recess to provide for financing of existing homes?
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the only amendment to the National Housing Act which we have so far said we will be introducing is the one dealing with the extension of the rebate period in connection with the development of sewage projects. The actual time when that will be brought forward will, of course, rest with the leader of the house.


John Richard Garland: Perhaps the minister did not hear my question. It was with respect to amending the National Housing Act to provide for the financing of existing homes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have nothing to add to the answer I have already given.



NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Paul Martineau (for the Minister of Finance), moved the second reading of Bill No. C-87, to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board.
(Translation):
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in submitting
this legislation to the house, the government, first of all, want, through this national development board, to obtain all information which will help ready its objective, that is, a continual economic development for Canada, and therefore, also consolidate the position of this country in the fields of finance and trade, and finally attain a higher level of production and employment.
Without putting any limitation on the objectives I just mentioned, this legislation will more particularly promote long term prospects for development in this country, provide the necessary stimulation of its economic activities, as well as give an opportunity of considering special projects of national importance, in which the federal government would financially, or otherwise, participate as the case may be.
As far as those special projects are concerned, it would certainly be necessary to provide for priorities as the need may arise in each part of the country, according to a master plan for the development of our resources and considering the greater availability of means due to the development of every sector of our national economy.
National Economic Development Board
I think those objectives include other aims, like for instance, a co-ordination of activities by all organizations serving Canada's development; a study of the means to make the maximum use of our resources and facilities for production as well as a forecast of our economic development rate in every field, for a long period of time, whether it be ten, 20 years or more. Finally, those aims include suggesting to the government the practical details which would in each case help achieve the proposed development.
As I say, and provide for, the creation of such an advisory body whose main task will be to advise the government on planning and on the means of development I just mentioned.
Thus, a great number of experts, of businessmen, of professionals, of university members, in short, of all the talents which are to be found in this country will be put to the service of the nation so as to ensure what is, I believe, the purpose of every member in this house, the maximum development of our resources.
Mr. Speaker, some people might wonder whether the government, in proposing the establishment of this national economic development board, is not going in for state planning.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is quite out of the question for the government and the party I belong to have stated several times and in no uncertain terms their position on this matter. If, by planning, these people mean the normal results of government direction where the government would take over the control of production means, then we are against that proposal, for such a planning could only lead to socialism, whether disguised or not, and to control measures which do not fit in with our history and our Canadian spirit, and which would lead to a form of control that we could not tolerate in a free enterprise system. No, Mr. Speaker.
This government has been and still is a champion of free enterprise in the best sense of the word. But, this does not mean that we should not have guide posts to promote the development of those vast resources which are the heritage of all Canadians.
I believe that we must set up an over-all plan for the development of our resources and the expansion of our economic activity. We must also find the solution to certain problems of the economic life of the nation. That is why the government wishes to take a new step towards their solution by submitting this proposal to this house.
2140	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board
Mr. Speaker, I was very much interested in the speech that my good friend, the ineffable member for Essex East, made the other evening on this measure in order to claim its paternity.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a constant and very dear practice on the part of the official opposition to claim the paternity of all good measures that we, from this side of the house, propose.
An hon. Member:: And rightly so.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, we are right indeed to suspect any proposal made by members of the official opposition, for many reasons. First of all, with regard to that measure about which the hon. member for Essex East talked with so much enthusiasm the other evening, it seems to me that the government of which he was a member could, during the years it was in power, have put it in force, in establishing a national development board. Because, is it not the role of a government to foresee?
Surely, those hon. gentlemen, who sat on the government side for 22 years, should have shown some foresight instead of leaving events follow their natural course; they should have solved the problem according to the best interests of the Canadian people, rather than indulge in political expediency.
As regards the hon. member for Essex East and those who surround him, I am somewhat in the position of that hero of ancient history who said: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. In fact, each time they express an idea or make a suggestion, I immediately think of those 22 years during which they did not show the foresight they should have shown.
He called the attention of the house to the motion presented by his party on May 23, 1960, some aspects of which, at least, were similar to those of the present motion and he wondered why the government had not then agreed to that proposal. The answer is quite simple. It is because that motion was based exclusively on the argument that our country, under the leadership of this government, was heading towards a serious crisis. And a proposal-


An hon. Member:: It is still true.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -based on such premises could not be acceptable, in spite of the merit it might have otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that the Canadian people, when they put our party 

in power in 1957, decided in favour of the development of our resources, material or human.
After five years, it may be said in all fairness that the government has made giant steps in that field, while the Liberal party, at the end of its long reign, had found itself in a state of advanced old age, characterized by senility, incapable of readjusting itself, having lost its fire and its faith in our country's destiny.
We the Conservatives, although saddled with the heavy legacy I have just mentioned, left to us by the Liberal administration, settled down to our task, despite the fact that the times were especially difficult ones, not only for our country but for the United States as well and, indeed, for most other countries in the world.
Those difficulties, Mr. Speaker, are well known and I do not intend to tell you about them here. They are mainly due to the fact that, on the one hand, the numerous requirements of a Europe destroyed by war and eager for reconstruction had just about been met and, on the other hand, the countries of western Europe, having benefited from the Marshall plan and other similar ones and carried out their own reconstruction through a gigantic readjustment effort, had started from scratch and adopted new methods of production and the latest thing in plant equipment, in keeping with modern technology and the era of automation.
The steps taken by this government were mostly long term measures, and their effects have only started to be felt. This new area of development conceived and implemented by the Prime Minister and his government is apparent mainly in the field of road building, such as roads of access to natural resources, making possible the rational exploration and development of new areas of the far north. Also, the construction of the trans-Canada highway was pursued and it was inaugurated last September.
That is what has been done with respect to the great northern regions of our country.
I know very well that during the many years the previous administration was in power, it failed to take strong and concrete action in that field and that those huge potential resources were left untapped.
The Liberal position in that field somewhat reminds me of the French philosopher Voltaire, who used to say when someone mentioned to him the extraordinary future that

National Economic Development Board
this country could offer to France, Europe and the whole world: "It is just a few acres of snow". The policy that has been described as an igloo to igloo policy compares to the position of the previous administration in the development of our resources.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are such men as the Prime Minister and the present Minister of Agriculture, formerly minister of northern affairs and national resources, to take care of it. They vigorously promoted the northern resources development program.
The present government has also changed completely the rural economy, but a much greater change, a basic change will occur through the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
That, in my opinion, is another revolutionary measure which offers extraordinary possibilities for the full development of those areas in our country which have been neglected for so long.
As a representative from the province of Quebec, I am aware that there is a tremendous job to be done in the field of agricultural transformation, but I am confident that well-planned and well-prepared legislation will be able to meet the needs of the farmers of the country and especially those in the east, those in the province of Quebec.
Furthermore, this expansion policy shows itself in the development of new sources of power and in the efficient use of our hydroelectric resources. In addition, our government has launched enormous industrial projects such as the South Saskatchewan river dam, the Beechwood project in New Brunswick, the Red river water control project in Manitoba, and many others. I only mention them to give an idea of the tremendous development program undertaken by this government and which is often laughed at by members of the opposition precisely because they never took the trouble to get acquainted with its principles or to understand its basis.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No one talks about the Columbia.


Paul Raymond Martineau: And, Mr. Speaker, I could go on and mention the efforts made by this government, the steps advocated by the Minister of Labour concerning the adjustment of our labour force to the new technology. There again, you have an area which was completely neglected by the previous administration because they had not seen the changes of the modern world, the new technology or the coming of automation.
We took fiscal measures which have promoted, are promoting and will promote even more in the years to come the development of our secondary industry, which is surely the greatest source of employment in Canada. Also under this government there is a policy for increasing exports from Canada, a policy based on the keeping of our competitive position in this field, allowing us to keep prices down and particularly to keep our markets, promoting new developments and productivity in every section of the Canadian industry.
This government pursues a development policy in the field of industrial research, the key to the future.
We forget too readily that the federal government finances at the present time over 60 per cent of all research done in Canada. There is a great number of departments and government agencies which are responsible mainly for that research. For example, the departments of agriculture, fisheries, northern affairs, forestry, trade and commerce, national health and welfare, national defence, the national research council, the atomic energy of Canada limited and, finally, my own Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. It has been described as the "eyes and ears" of the other government agencies. In fact, it is the one that is responsible for establishing what our resources are. It benefits from all new scientific developments and it prepares all the surveys. Its experts explore the deeps of the sea, explore our immense and unknown territory and go up in the air to find out what mysteries it holds.
That department is all at once the official mapping and photographic agency of the government and a scientific organization with responsibilities and functions that have increased tremendously these last few years. It is also a department which, while fulfilling the functions I have just described, does a lot to ensure a sounder economic future to our country. The researches which have been undertaken have greatly increased scientific progress and the field of knowledge throughout the world since 1957.
Since it has come to power, the present government has put the emphasis on the establishment of a comprehensive program of geodesic, topographical, geographical and oceanographic surveys which have served as a basis for the industrial growth of our country and the development of distant areas.
2142	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board In addition, the department's program has been stepped up to help all these branches, namely the surveys and mapping branch, the geological survey of Canada, the mines branch, the Canadian hydrographic service, the geodetic survey of Canada, the mineral resources division and, finally maritime sciences. My department has also taken part in the international geophysical year; it is doing some research on the earth's crust and is engaged in many other projects.
In addition, it has, this year, looked particularly to the problems of the far north, and in the past year has processed over 500,000 square miles of air photographs establishing links with the east-west geodetic systems, and stepping up the general air-mapping program. The Canadian hydrographic vessel Baffin which has conducted hydrographic soundings in the Arctic seas entered areas until then mostly unknown.
We have this year inaugurated an oceanographic centre in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, which has made that city a world oceanographic point.
The work of the geological survey of Canada was also vigorously carried on. In fact, over 750,000 square miles in the northern areas have been mapped these last five years; those surveys extended also beyond the mainland to cover some Arctic islands.
The mines branch carried out a wide range of technical work of various kinds, not only in basic research but in connection with the processing of ore, industrial minerals, fuels and metallurgy on the commercial level.
Work was mostly centered on research to find new uses for metals such as gold and uranium, on studies of iron ore mining problems, of specific projects of the mining industry such as, for instance, a series of visits to gold mines and mills in order to find out the technical means likely to increase productivity. As regards uranium, we have set up a program for the peaceful use of that new element. As a matter of fact, investigations are now being made into the possible development of some kind of steel in which uranium would be one of the components.
Mr. Speaker, some might wonder why I mention all those scientific research projects undertaken by the Canadian government. It is because if we really want to promote the development of our resources, we must first determine what those resources are, and then, find the best way to use them. That is the
fMr. Martineau.l

reason why I say that we have taken a most important first step towards the development of our country, more particularly as regards our knowledge of its potential wealth.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are too often inclined to forget what resources and wealth we have. They are forgotten because, from the opposition side, our country has been too much disparaged. In fact, the hon. members of the opposition are always pessimistic, are always talking about the dark side of things and keep on shedding crocodile tears.
Their attitude is in sharp contrast to that of foreigners who visit Canada and who are filled with admiration, not to say astonishment, when they realize the vast potentialities of our country. In the light of the enumeration I have just made, can we not say that this government has really done enormously to give Canadians the opportunity of getting the maximum out of our country's wealth?
The Liberals like to say that everything is on the brink of collapse. In fact, should we listen to them, we would believe we are at the end of the world.
Mr. Speaker, I would rather listen to wise words, like those spoken by the prime minister of Eastern Nigeria who stated, during a recent visit to Canada: "Gentlemen, you are complaining about your problems, but rest assured that they are trivial compared to ours."


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: Certainly.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Let us take a country closer to ours. A few weeks ago, an economic delegation from France visited Canada. The chairman of that delegation, one of the most important European financiers, a past minister of France and honorary chairman of the Bank of France, stated: "You are living in a world of great abundance; if you only knew how to get the most out of it."
The same gentleman also told us that his country was seriously considering all that our country has to offer with a view to making important investments in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, such is the opinion expressed by almost all sensible people who visit our country. In fact, I read in yesterday's paper that an American from Texas, a Mr. Murchison, used words to that effect while enumerating all the advantages Canada offers. According to him, Canada is not crumbling down, contrary to what the Liberals have ben trying to make us believe for so long. Does Mr. Murchison think that Canada can-

National Economic Development Board
not be set back on its feet again? No. He already finds in our country all the elements required for prosperity and, indeed, a large measure of prosperity now existing.
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not suggesting that our country cannot progress even more.
This is precisely why we legislate and ask the house to consider this bill to set up a national economic development board, which would be responsible for pursuing the aims I mentioned earlier and whose work will bring tangible results, like a further expansion of productivity, increased production of manufactured goods in Canada, greater wealth for Canadians who will thus be given an opportunity of investing in new Canadian projects, as well as more employment and a higher living standard.
As a citizen of the province of Quebec I rejoice together with my fellow citizens at this spectacle of a greater and economically stronger Canada.
Mr. Speaker, those are the reasons why I am happy to introduce this motion, as I am satisfied that it will be followed by a new era of co-operation among Canadians, be they scientists, financiers, industrialists, the professionals or university men.
If we work together and eliminate the partisanship which we witness but too often, on the other side of the house, we should attain the objectives set by this bill.
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members were interested in the minister's wide ranging speech in which he covered a lot of subjects, but he did not tell us very much about this bill. The members of the opposition welcome the bill to the extent that it proposes some degree of long term economic planning, which we have been advocating for so long.
The Liberal program, which was developed prior to the election in June of this year, contains on page 10 a proposal to set up an economic council. This proposal reads as follows:
The council's members will have a wide variety of experience in business, in labour matters, in farming and in government. They will be assisted by an expert staff. The council will be charged to analyse what is going on and what is planned in the Canadian economy. It will investigate trends and publish outlook reports. It will enable government and business, labour and farmers together to take a reasoned and co-operative view of economic needs and objectives. The council will then make recommendations to government about the planning of its own activities and the measures that will assist full economic efficiency and progress.
A similar proposal was contained in the Liberal party's program for the 1958 election, and as my friend, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) pointed out the other day, the same idea was put forward by the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects on page 436 of its final report, which is dated November 1957, in the following terms:
We believe it might be helpful if a body of economic experts were established whose function it would be to inform the government of changes which might be thought desirable in economic policy in order to ensure a high level of employment without inflation. One responsibility of this body would be to publish annual or semi-annual reports for the general information of the public. The success or failure of such an innovation would depend of course very largely upon the good judgment of the men who might be chosen for the task and also upon their reputations for objectivity and hence the confidence which the public would be likely to have in their opinions.
It may be suggested, no doubt, that in presenting this particular proposal the government has merely lifted something from the Liberal party program and, if I may say so, not done a very good job in doing so.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Certainly.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In the opinion of the hon. gentleman, would not such a proposal as he has just described as being a part of the 1958 Liberal program have been a good measure, say in 1952 or 1955, or somewhere around there?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think Your Honour a little while ago made some remarks about intelligent questions. I will be glad to try and deal with any that fall under that category. If hon. members want an answer I will be glad to give one. I am all in favour of getting ahead with things sooner or later, preferably sooner. I am more interested in looking forward than I am in looking back. If the minister had permitted me to go on to my next sentence, I was about to say that I have nc objection whatever to the government borrowing ideas from the Liberal party program or from any other party's programs.
Let me emphasize this as much as I can. There are no copyrights, there are no patents, there are no monopolistic rights in the area of ideas; and I hope there never will be. Therefore if the government sincerely believes that the program and the proposals put forward by the opposition would be in the best interests of the country, it is a clear duty
2144	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board as well as a right of the government to act upon them. But in considering this bill to establish a national economic development board we have a right on our side to know whether the government is genuinely and seriously converted to the view that some forward thinking and economic planning is one of the prerequisites of good government. I would point out that another prerequisite of good government is the ability to make decisions, something that this government and this Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) have shown themselves not only reluctant to do but temperamentally unable to do during the past five years. If this new board is to become merely a convenient receptacle in which to deposit a variety of problems on which the government should act, then it could do more harm than good.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I harbour some suspicion about whether all the members of the government, or even a majority of them, have really been converted to believing in economic planning, in view of what they said both before and during the election campaign. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) referred to what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) said in this house on May 23, 1960, which appears on page 4162 of Hansard, in connection with a similar proposal that the hon. member for Essex East had put forward at that time. I would like to quote just two sentences of the minister's speech on that occasion:
That is one way of shirking the responsibility of government. This government does not intend to set up committees in order to shirk its responsibilities. This government feels it has a responsibility toward this problem, and intends to take action in order to do everything possible to relieve the problem.
I must say that this point of view is very different to the line taken by the same minister, the Minister of Labour, on November 22 in this house when he was talking about the proposed advisory council on industrial change and manpower adjustment. I am curious to know when his conversion took place and how deep it goes. When this board was first proposed, as it was in the speech from the throne, there was a good deal of newspaper comment about it. I have in my hand a clipping from the Toronto Star of September 29, 1962, which is headed, "Does it mean PM now sold on state planning". I will read just one paragraph of this article which is headed, "Nasty idea":
State planning has always been a nasty idea to Conservative politicians, and the idea of a state planning agency must have been a difficult pill for some Conservative cabinet members to swallow.


Nevertheless, now that the idea has been accepted, the question remains: Will a Conservative government make such a board effective and will it listen to such a board?
I have here another report dated October 3 which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail, a newspaper which sometimes supports the present government. It is a long report and I wish to read only one or two passages from it. The heading is, "A major step toward economic planning". After an introduction to this subject it says:
Undertaking some form of planning of economic development has long been urged by both the Liberal and New Democratic parties.
The article continues:
Within the past year there has also been growing pressure from some of Canada's leading businessmen. But the Conservative government long resisted such a move on the grounds that it would require the imposition of bureaucratic controls over business and industry.
Then a little later in the article it goes on to speculate how this idea arose, and it says:
The two key people who appear to have played a major part in bringing about that change of heart are the new Minister of Finance, George Nowlan, and the new Minister without Portfolio, but with enormous influence, Senator Wallace McCutcheon, former vice-president of the huge Argus holding corporation.
Then later on in the article it says this:
While there may be some difference in makeup, it is likely the job handed to the Canadian development board will closely parallel that of the British national economic development council, popularly known as Neddy.
I would like to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, part of one more report that appeared in the Peterborough Examiner on June 5, 1962. This is a report of a speech the Prime Minister made during the election campaign about a proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) to get the assistance of the best brains in Canada to solve some of our economic problems. This is what the Prime Minister had to say, according to this report:
Mr. Diefenbaker also criticized Liberal leader Lester Pearson's campaign pledge to establish a task force of the best brains of the country to advise him on problems of economic growth and unemployment.
The Prime Minister said it would be a "brains trust" that would be a denial of cabinet authority- "a substitution of controllers for the authority of parliament".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Pre-McCutcheon.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, that was in the pre-McCutcheon era. I suggest that in the course of the debate on this new board which was hailed with such a flourish of trumpets, and in which the government is so obviously interested-I say this because I think there are only two members of the cabinet present,

and because neither of the two ministers who are supposed to be the chief sponsors are present-


Mr. Jones:: They heard you were going to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have the parliamentary secretary.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I thought that was a pleasant remark I heard. I think that is a good enough excuse.
I say this, that in the course of the debate on this bill both the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister will be expected to explain the reasons why they now believe in a concept which they castigated so violently such a short time ago. If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour do not give an unequivocal explanation of their strange conversion, we shall be entitled to assume that they still harbour deep reservations about this new approach to modern government.
It has been suggested that the strongest promoter within the cabinet of this legislation has been the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. McCutcheon). It is perhaps unfortunate that he became a member of the cabinet in a way which precludes him from arguing his case in this house except through the mouths of others, some of whom have been bitterly opposed to this whole idea of economic planning, or were so until a few short months ago. As the Minister without Portfolio knows well, an inefficient institution cannot be revamped or reorganized effectively merely by adding new pieces of administrative machinery, no matter how desirable in themselves such new pieces of machinery may be. Because of the nature of his experience, the Minister without Portfolio knows, even though his new found colleagues and associates may not, that the way to improve an inefficient organization is to start at the top, not at the bottom. As I suggested earlier today, I know that sometimes when the Minister without Portfolio has been confronted with such a problem in the past and in his other occupations, his first move has been to bring about a change in top management. It would be interesting to see if he attempts the same technique in the new surroundings in which he finds himself.
The shocking revelations of the Glassco commission about the inefficiency of the government's administrative organization will not surprise anyone who has watched this government perform. We have been here now for nine weeks, and in that time we have witnessed the inability of this government to plan the work of parliament itself-let alone the economy of Canada.
National Economic Development Board


Douglas Scott Harkness: Obstruction on the part of the opposition.


Henry Frank Jones: Particularly by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be delighted to tell hon. gentlemen opposite why, but I do not want to become involved in a political argument while we are discussing this particular bill. However, I have a few examples which hon. members may be interested in hearing. We have been here nine weeks, but we have heard nothing about the government's much touted long-term program for dealing with our basic economic problems-unemployment, and insufficient rate of economic growth and the adverse balance of payments situation. By this time, surely, no one really believes the government has any long-term program of this kind. In these last nine weeks we have not been presented with a budget or a proper financial accounting for the present fiscal year. We know by now that the government is afraid to present a budget for the current fiscal year since this would entail a vote on the $200 million of additional taxes which are being levied in the form of customs surcharges by order in council. And we know the government is determined, by hook or by crook, to conceal from this house and the public the dubious authority which it has, if any, for the order in council to which I have referred. This failure of the government to bring down a proper budget and to obtain approval for taxes levied by order in council is an affront to every member of the house and an insult to the Canadian people.
As I have said, the government has shown itself unable to make decisions or to manage anything. In these circumstances I doubt if the government will be able to make any more use of an economic development board than it seems to be able to make use of other parts of the existing government service and machinery. In principle, we on this side are very much in favour of long term economic planning, but we remain to be convinced that the government is really serious or that the proposal is not, from their standpoint, only a piece of window dressing.
After all the advance notice and all the fanfare about this economic development board and all the things it is supposed to be designed to do, this Bill C-87 comes as a great let down and disappointment. According to this bill, the board will be nothing more than a tame, domesticated group working directly for the Minister of Finance. It is not to make independent reports to the public. In fact, it would seem that any contacts with the public would be carefully controlled and circumscribed by the ministry. So, stripped down to its essentials, all this bill seems to mean is
2146	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board that the Minister of Finance is to have a new full time official at his disposal plus another advisory committee. It is a device for reorganizing a section of the Department of Finance in a way which will circumvent the civil service commission. The staff of the board can be recruited without going through the civil service commission, and their salaries can be set by the treasury board and thus be influenced greatly by the Minister of Finance.
The duties of the board as set out in clause 9 seem to boil down to a continual study of Canada's long term economic prospects and of the methods which could be employed to stimulate a more adequate rate of economic growth. In addition, the board may be used to undertake special investigations and studies of various matters. Surely, if this board is to have no real or independent status its objectives could be achieved by some senior official of the department with the necessary staff.
There is a provision in clause 10 for the board, by order of the minister or of the governor in council, to conduct public inquiries and call witnesses. But it remains to be seen what kind of inquiries will be held and how the proposed powers will be used. Neither the Minister of Finance nor the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys has said much about this. Clause 12 of the bill stipulates that the board shall report-


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, while we are interested in these observations, most of them unfounded I think on the part of the hon. member, he might be persuaded to delay his clause by clause observations until we get into committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order which the hon. gentleman has raised, there has been no attempt on the part of my hon. friend to discuss the clauses in detail. This bill has to do with a national economic development board, which is described in the bill. My hon. friend is seeking, from the anatomy of the bill, to try to form some picture of the proposed anatomy of this board; and I have never heard before this kind of technical objection raised on second reading.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, which has been raised, on many an occasion in the House of Commons over many years, on second reading of a bill the general principles are discussed. Clauses are reserved for committee. That is the normal practice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: I have listened with great attention to the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Davenport, and I think that he was discussing the principle of the bill. He made only a reference to clause 9. But on the point


of order which has been raised, I am sure all hon. members will try to permit the hon. member who has the floor to continue the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Like the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was interested in the way the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys did that. I have no intention of discussing the bill on a clause by clause basis today, but I can assure the minister that we will do so when the bill goes to committee. However, the bill does stipulate-and this is something that I wish to remark upon-that the board shall cooperate with all departments, branches and agencies of the government, including the national productivity council. I was surprised to find that it was necessary to put such a clause or such phrases into the bill, because surely they are redundant and unnecessary. 1 had assumed that all government departments and agencies co-operated with each other. How else can the government function? I found that the specific reference to the national productivity council was at least intriguing because, as hon. members know, the productivity council, following the report of its special mission to Europe, was proposing to extend its scope and functions to include a review of economic prospects and of ways of stimulating the economy. With these added functions and the provision for a full time staff, the productivity council might have been in a position to do a useful job. But now the work is to be divided between one public body, the productivity council, and what may well become merely a branch of the Department of Finance. One may wonder whether this is not a deliberate attempt to emasculate and downgrade the productivity council.
I suggest that instead of setting up this new board, which according to the bill seems intended to be little more, as I have said, than an appendage of the Department of Finance, it might have been more effective to change the complexion of the national productivity council and to enlarge its scope. In our view, Mr. Speaker, there is need for a separate national economic council with a full time staff, and I should like to indicate some of the things for which in our view such a council should be responsible.
First, it should be the principal or one of the principal arms of government, and as such it would be necessary for it to be a separate and a public body. Second, such a council should report to a designated minister, in this case probably the Minister of Finance, as all boards, commissions and government agencies should do. But it should

be separate from the Department of Finance and it should be exposed to and accessible to the public. Third, this council should be concerned not only with analysing economic trends; it should also have as one of its main functions responsibility for working out solutions to our basic problems in practical terms. This means that the council should translate a good rate of economic growth into targets for each of the principal industries of the country; and in doing this it would be necessary to take into account regional problems and regional points of view. Fourth, the council should point the fact out to the government, if it appears that any of the government's policies are in conflict with one another, as recently they have so often been, and it should be its responsibility to suggest how these conflicts might be reconciled. Fifth, the council should report periodically to the public on short and long term economic trends. By this means the federal government, the provinces, the municipalities and private enterprise of all kinds, including all occupational groups, the farmers and the labour unions, can together take a reasoned view of our economic needs. When this has been achieved the policies required to meet those needs can be implemented by the government, with some assurance that they will be understood and supported by all sections of the public.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


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



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, might I obtain unanimous consent of the house for the placing of Bill S-14, which is almost in the nature of a procedural bill, ahead of the divorce bills on Tuesday next?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there was an order made the other day that Bill S-12, in the name of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Hanbidge), would be given precedence over all other bills. I think that order was made at my suggestion and it is an order of the house. I would hope that hon. members in all parts of the house would cooperate in the same way with my hon. friend from Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton) in giving precedence to his bill as well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Make the same reservation you made the other day, though.
Private Bills


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very happy to make the same reservation, as the minister has reminded me-that every time we do this we are interfering with the rights of citizens who have petitioned this parliament, and whose rights are not being advanced.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I just wanted you to be fair to both sides.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: Does the house give unanimous consent to advance Bill S-14, respecting the Merit Insurance Company, and after that to discuss Bill S-12?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; Bill S-12 is first.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Mr. Speaker, discussion on Bill S-14 is to be held on Tuesday next. The bill was received only this morning from the Senate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: Is it agreed that Bill S-14 is to be called next Tuesday?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

Mr. R. L. Hanbidge (Kindersley) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-12, to incorporate Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to say thank you to the members of all parties for giving this bill priority. The purpose of Bill No. S-12 is to incorporate a new Canadian life insurance company to be known as Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada. The bill has already been approved by the other place and has been examined by the members of the banking and commerce committee of the other place. It has also received the stamp of approval by Mr. MacGregor, the superintendent of insurance.
The capital stock of the company will be $1 million, which may be increased to $3 million. The incorporators of the company and their addresses are set forth in section 1 of the bill. All are Canadians. I am not personally acquainted with any of the gentlemen who are making application to incorporate this company but I know some of them by reputation. One of them is Mr. Edgar Burton who I believe is head of the Robert Simpson Company. Another is Mr. Norman Currie Urquhart who is an industrialist and philanthropist in the city of Toronto, past president of the Canadian Red Cross and is at present, I believe, chairman of the board of trustees of the Toronto General hospital.
I understand that when the company is incorporated all of the men named in section 1, and a couple of others as well, will be on the board of directors. Allstate Insurance

Private Bills
Company was incorporated in the United States in 1931 by Sears, Roebuck and Company, and all the shares in Allstate Insurance Company were held by Sears, Roebuck. In 1949 the Allstate Insurance Company was licensed to carry on business in Canada. In 1953 Sears, Roebuck and Company bought a half interest in the mail order business of the Robert Simpson Company Limited and that business has since been carried on, I believe, under the name of Simpsons-Sears. One of the terms or conditions of the sale of that business was that an interest in the insurance business in Canada would be transferred and assigned over to Simpsons-Sears.
In 1960 the Allstate Insurance Company of Canada was incorporated by act of this parliament, chapter 50 of the statutes of 1960. In 1957 the Allstate organization in the United States incorporated a subsidiary, Allstate Life Insurance Company, and commenced operations in the life insurance field. The life insurance company was licensed under the Foreign Insurance Companies Act in Canada in 1960 and has since written approximately $15 million worth of life insurance business in Canada.
As part of the sale of its mail order business by Robert Simpson Company Limited to Sears, Roebuck it was agreed that an interest in the Allstate insurance business would be sold or transferred to Simpsons-Sears Limited. The only way in which Simpsons-Sears Limited can obtain an interest-at least, so they have been advised by counsel-in the Canadian business of Allstate Insurance Company is to incorporate a separate company in Canada to which the existing Canadian business would be transferred and which would write all future Canadian policies. It was for that purpose that the company was incorporated in 1960 under Canadian law as the Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, with power to write all lines of insurance other than life. The present bill empowers the Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada to write life insurance, accident and sickness insurance.
The shares of both Canadian companies will be owned to the extent of 75 per cent by Allstate Insurance Company, that is, the American company, and to the extent of 25 per cent by Simpsons-Sears Limited. Simpsons-Sears Limited is owned 50 per cent by Simpsons Limited and 50 per cent by Sears, Roebuck and Company. It is the hope and intention of the Allstate Insurance Company of Canada and the Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada to commence active operation early in 1963. It is hoped that this bill will go through and the company will be incorporated so that the necessary transfer can be arranged before the end of this year. As the bill will be referred to the banking

and commerce committee, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if there are any delicate questions they be withheld until counsel for the company and representatives of the company in addition to Mr. MacGregor, the superintendent of insurance, appear before the committee. I know they will be able to give the necessary answers and I might not be able to do so.


Mr. Reid Scotl (Danforth):: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before this question is put to the house I should like to say a word about its effect. Under the rules of the house, as I understand them, when we are considering a public bill we are considering the principle of the bill during a debate on second reading. In the case of a private bill, that is not the rule. In the case of private bills, we are really, according to my views which I know will not be shared by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) or the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), just permitting the bills to get to the committee where their principle and everything else about them can be examined. In other words, we do not generally take up the time of the house to debate these private bills.
I am not suggesting for a minute that the hon. gentleman's motion is out of order. Of course, it is quite in order, as I understand it. However, I say what we would be doing if we voted for the amendment would be prejudging these questions before we have ever

Private Bills
listened to the evidence. I know that Allstate represents Sears, Roebuck. I have even bought their tires on occasion in the United States because they are usually cheaper than anybody else's. I suspected, therefore, when I saw the name of this company it had something to do with Sears, Roebuck. This is the extent of my knowledge of it. I really have no brief for anybody or anything except that I do think it would be an undesirable practice for us to adopt-and I think many of us share the admirable general views that were expressed by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott)-merely because we feel that we do not want to have our resources controlled by anybody but Canadians.
We are very happy to have other people come here either to live or, in the case of our party at any rate, to invest their capital, as long as they are completely under the jurisdiction of this country, of its government and of its institutions. We have found that when we did admit immigrants and when we did admit capital to this country it grew, and when those things did not happen it did not grow very well. As I say, I agree with the hon. gentleman that we should not do anything that will lessen our control over our own resources. But that is not the same thing as saying we should do something without hearing the evidence as to whether it will, and in committee it will be possible to hear witnesses and to cross-examine the witnesses in order to get all the evidence.
I might say right here and now that this is a private bill and I do not think any party is involved. I am simply speaking for myself and, speaking for myself I say that if the amendment is brought to a vote I intend to vote against it. I shall do so with a perfectly clear conscience for the reasons I have given, but I was going to make a suggestion to the hon. member, who is a new member, that he consider holding this amendment until third reading.
After he has heard the evidence and heard everything that can be said on both sides of the question, if he then feels that the incorporation of this company is injurious to Canada he will have every right and every duty to do his best to defeat the bill. I do not wish to say more at this stage because, as I said, the hon. member is a new member and based on his actions to date I have esteem for him. I do not want to reflect on him in any way, but I appeal to him to consider the possibility of taking the course I am suggesting and of deferring his amendment until he has heard the evidence in committee. If he then feels justified, from
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
what he hears, in bringing forward the amendment on third reading perhaps if he has a good case he would have many more supporters at that stage than now.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I just want to say very briefly that we have been looking for an opportunity to put work before committees of the house, and I do not believe we should vote in such a way at this point as to prevent our hearing the evidence that should be submitted to us. Therefore I for one will vote against the amendment.


Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment offered by my colleague from Danforth. The members of this party, of course, have been reading the evidence that has been adduced before the standing committee on banking and commerce of the other place and, having read that evidence, and having read what was said by Mr. MacGregor, the superintendent of insurance, we offered this amendment.
I was a little bit surprised that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) apparently had not been keeping up with developments in the committees of the other place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is not suggesting that I am neglecting my duties, is he?


Thomas Rodney Berger: By no means, Mr. Speaker. One of the difficulties Canada faces today is that we have no real control over Canadian savings. Canadians save in various ways. They buy mortgages which represent their savings, but they have no control over their mortgage payments. They are in the hands of mortgage companies.
Canadians contribute to pension plans and these plans are administered by large financial institutions, but Canadians have no control over their own savings in them. Canadians also buy life insurance and their premiums constitute their savings, yet they have no real or effective control over those savings.
The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) has pointed out that in this case there is a bill to incorporate a life insurance company over which Canadians will have practically no control whatever, because the right to appoint the majority of the directors will lie in the hands of a foreign corporation. When I say "foreign corporation" I do not intend to make any invidious comparisons to domestic or Canadian corporations. However, we must face the fact that more and more of our industry and resources is falling into the hands of United States interests. We have observed United States interests gaining

greater and greater control over financial institutions in Canada, and the hon. member for Danforth has said that it would be a good idea to reverse this trend right now.
As I pointed out, the hon. member for Danforth has had the benefit of studying the evidence that was adduced before the committee of the other place. It was the failure on the part of the old Liberal government to look ahead and plan ahead that got us into our present difficulty. After the second world war there was a wave of investment rolling into Canada from the United States. This investment was completely unchecked and unregulated, and when it receded Canada was in trouble because United States capital was largely equity capital. We did not simply borrow the money to develop our resources. We allowed United States investors to get a stranglehold on our key industries, and among them is the financial industry. As a result, in 1961 more than $700 million in profits and dividends went from Canada to the United States.
As I have said, when this wave of investment receded it resulted in economic disorder in Canada. We found we had no control over many of the industries on which we depended for our livelihood. We found we had no American dollars left with which to meet the commitments that had been made by the Canadian government and Canadian corporations to United States interests. Therefore the hon. member for Danforth has offered an amendment to this bill which will serve notice, here and now, that Canadians intend to have something to say about the future of their own country. I urge all hon. members, and in particular the hon. member for Bona-vi.sta-Twillingate and his colleagues in the Liberal party, who are to such a large extent responsible for the fact that Canadians have no control over their own savings, to reconsider the position that was announced a moment ago by the hon. member and support this amendment as heartily as those of us in the New Democratic party.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: could speak very briefly on the amendment offered by the hon. member for Danforth I would say that the distinction drawn by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate between a public bill and a private bill is extremely well taken, particularly in a case such as the present one. As he has said, there is ample authority in Beauchesne and other works which help guide us in our deliberations, and it is only after a bill of this nature has received second reading and gone into committee that one can really ascertain what the facts are.
27507-3-136
Private Bills
As I read clause 1 of the bill several gentlemen, all of whom appear to me to be Canadians, will be empowered to be the incorporators of what is called the Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada. It may be that they have in mind, although we do not know it, setting up a whole board of directors who are not Canadians, but we cannot determine this unless we call these gentlemen before us in committee and cross-examine them as to their intentions. For this reason I suggest that the hon. member is premature in moving the amendment. He can move it in the committee or on third reading in the house, but to bring in a verdict first before hearing the evidence seems to be rather pointless.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address some remarks to the points made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and the hon. member for Danforth. The hon. member for Danforth, the mover of this motion, has taken the position that we should not permit the incorporation in this country of a corporation which will be controlled by foreign capital. I am sure he is aware that there is a very extensive operation by foreign insurance corporations licensed to carry on business in this country. Therefore this is the first question that must come to the minds of hon. members as a logical extension of the remarks made by the hon. member and his colleague, that foreign corporations licensed to do business in Canada shall not be entitled to do so. One would think that if the question of national control has the importance put on it by the hon. member in this conection, it would be at least preferable that the business should be carried on by an entity incorporated under the laws of this country instead of, as happens in many cases, being carried on by a foreign entity which only obtains licensing under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.
The second objection which would be made is this, as a full, logical extension of the hon. member's remarks. There are a number of very substantial Canadian life insurance companies which have a very large proportion of their business carried on throughout the world, and more particularly in the United States. I would refer hon. members to the very extensive business carried on by the Canada Life Insurance Company in the state of California. A reciprocal application of the doctrine put forward by the hon. member would, I think, result in unfavourable treatment for Canadian corporations under foreign jurisdiction. It should be pointed out that in the case of companies like Manufacturers Life and Canada Life these are not private companies in the sense which is commonly

Private Bills
assumed and has been assumed by the hon. member. These are mutual companies, mutualized under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. Therefore the assets of very many Canadian policyholders are involved, and very many Canadians might suffer if we adopted in this house a policy of narrow nationalism and rejected this bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will of course be brief. I only want to say that I was very interested in what the hon. member for Rosedale just said. If I understood correctly, he was saying that there are a large number of United States-controlled companies in the life insurance field now doing business in Canada, and this being the case it would be just as well to let them continue and even increase in number. This is something like saying if a person had smallpox he would not bother doing anything about it until it ran its full course and killed him.
We have to start somewhere in dealing with the question of Canadian ownership. We started briefly, we thought, into this field a few years ago when we were dealing with the question of a pipe line company. We spent many, many hours in this house trying to establish, with respect to pipe lines, even the relatively very minor point that the directors should be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident or domiciled in Canada. It took many, many hours of discussion in this house at that time to establish even that point. But we have to start somewhere to deal with this question of repatriating the ownership and control of our own economic welfare. We cannot do it by throwing up our hands and saying, "After all, the Americans own it all now. Let us forget about it and let them carry on".
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I disagree with the original proposal made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He anticipated my disagreement, because we have had general discussions about this question on other bills. I will say, inasmuch as I am the seconder of the amendment, that if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had directed his request to hold it off to me as seconder, then I would be in a position to comment on that request. But I will assume that he did, inasmuch as he directed it to the mover.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that I had not the slightest intention of overlooking him in any way. I would never be so foolish.


Frank Howard: I would only say in reply that to my way of looking at it, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is never foolish.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the hon. member a question while he is devoting himself to remarks on this bill. What would be the effect of accepting the principle outlined by the hon. member for Danforth on the business that the Saskatchewan government insurance office does in North Dakota, which I understand is carried on at the present time by the government of the province of Saskatchewan?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does not know the answer to that question then perhaps I can make the same comments about him as I did about the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, except that I would reverse them.


Henry Frank Jones: I asked a question. The hon. member says, "Don't let them do this". What about that Saskatchewan company?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, would you protect me from these inane interruptions?
The answer to the question, if one is really required, is that the adoption of this amendment would in no way affect the situation which the hon. member for Saskatchewan so ably posed to us. I would say this, though, getting back to the question of whether or not this amendment should be deferred or held off until some other time, and in the interim we would have the opportunity to hear representations before the committee, that at least the hon. member for Danforth is able to read and took advantage of reading the evidence taken before the committee of the other place, which was afterwards printed. It was from that evidence that he got the information which he used prior to moving the amendment. In fact, it was not just-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question at this point. Does he think we should use a committee of the other place to deal with all the private bills that come before this house?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if you would permit me to invade that particular field I would be glad to talk about the subject of other types of private bills.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Heaven forbid.


Frank Howard: I presume the hon. member was talking about those bills which are preceded by the letters SD, of which there are some 600 or 700 in this particular divorce mill. Frankly, I would like somebody else to deal with them. We have made, as the hon. member knows, a number of alternate suggestions for dealing with those particular

bills and I would like to see the government adopt one of them anyhow; I would like to see them be that courageous.
But to get back to the question that is before us, Mr. Speaker, a few days ago when we were dealing with other bills hon. members of the house were invited to look at the evidence taken before a committee of the other place in order to ascertain what were the circumstances before we began talking about them. We took that advice and that invitation and looked at this particular bill. The sole principle of the amendment is that of taking steps to bring under our own control and direction, as nationals of a country and as the people of a country, our economic and financial welfare; not to have it drift away and be controlled by people in other countries. This is not an anti-foreign speech or anything like that; it is just pro-Canadian, of the type that was made regularly with respect to Aurora pipe lines. We hope that by (1) this amendment, and (2) the discussion which ensues and is taking place, on the public record and in the public press, perhaps, this information and our desires will somehow get to the attention of the proponents of this bill; not the sponsor in the house but the people who are petitioning for the incorporation of this company. So that if and when-and I say "if" because it may not happen this session; it is difficult to say-this particular bill is put before the banking and commerce committee, the people who are petitioning for the bill will expect the type of things that we will require of them, namely steps in the direction of ensuring that we control our own destiny and that we do not export it at every conceivable opportunity.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not intend to say anything about the bill itself. I will only say I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), which causes me some disturbance because it is the first time in years I have found myself in agreement with him. For once, though, the hon. member is right. I think his statement was clearly presented and his advice sound. What disturbs me is this: If the six months hoist proposal were adopted now, the sponsors of the bill would be deprived of the opportunity of having it discussed in committee. They would be deprived of the right which we give to sponsors of other private bills, and a committee of the house would also be prevented from making a useful investigation into the subject matter.
While expressing no opinion one way or another as to the value of the bill I suggest, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out, that this is not the best method to deal with a bill on second reading 27507-3-136J
Private Bills
when it is a private bill which would, in the normal course, arrive before a committee where it could be examined. In addition, of course, the bill could be dealt with on third reading on its return to this house. As a matter of fact, anyone who does not approve of this bill could vote against it on second reading without having to support a proposal for a six months hoist. There would also be an opportunity to vote against it on third reading.
However, if this comes to a vote-if the mover of the amendment does not accept the advice which has been offered to him-it is not particularly the concern of the government side. This is a private member's bill and any vote which is taken on it can certainly not be considered as reflecting in any way upon the government. I appreciate that the house has given us a vote of confidence on seven occasions already this year, so we are not concerned with this particular matter.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I am
not sure whether the Minister of Veterans Affairs was in the house a little earlier when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said he knew nothing. I cannot say I altogether agree with the hon. member's own assessment of himself, but in respect to the arguments he used on the subject of the amendment, arguments which have been so volubly supported from the side of the house opposite to that on which the hon. member himself sits, I would like to point this out: some of my colleagues have already made it clear that this amendment was not moved by the hon. member for Danforth without careful consideration. He had given a good deal of thought to the matter.
In the second place, I feel there is a very valid reason why the advice proffered by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and approved by the leader of the house should not be accepted by the mover of the amendment. I believe my hon. friend from Danforth and those who support him in moving the amendment have made it clear that the purpose of doing so is not to discriminate against a particular company but to set forth certain principles and argue for a certain course of action. I suggest that if we were to follow the advice which has been given us, and let this bill go to a committee and then vote against it on third reading we would be voting against a particular company and there may or may not be good ground for doing that. I feel, therefore, that the motion is a sound one and that it deserves the support of the house.

Division


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he believe, then, that it is better to shoot someone accidentally than deliberately?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the principle of this bill. May I call it six o'clock?



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An act respecting The Eastern Trust Company.
An act respecting The North American General Insurance Company.
An act to amend the Income Tax Act.
An act to amend the Estate Tax Act.
An act to amend the Farm Credit Act.
An act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
An act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1963.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Martineau, for the Minister of Finance) for the second reading of Bill No. C-87, to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board.
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was speaking on this bill which is to create an economic development board. I understand that during the dinner recess the Minister of Public Works has announced his intention of leaving the government in order to contest the leadership of the Conservative party in British Columbia.


Mr. Graffiey:: What has that to do with the bill?


Mr. Habel:: We would like to wish him well.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think it is fair to say that the Minister of Public Works is one of the best liked and most respected members of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -and one of the ablest members. It would be interesting to know whether the minister was influenced in his decision either by his abhorrence of this bill, which favours some measure of economic planning that offends the minister's Conservative principles and upbringing, or by his unhappiness at a continuance of an alliance, anywhere in Canada, between the Conservative party and the Social Credit party. I cannot wish the minister success in his future political endeavour, but-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should caution the hon. member that his time is rapidly running out and perhaps he would spend it more usefully dealing with second reading of the bill under consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you forget that the hon. member is replying to the second reading of the bill on behalf of our party, and has unlimited time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point as to
relevancy still applies, but the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is perfectly correct in saying that the hon. member has unlimited time. I had forgotten that he was speaking on behalf of his party and I apologize to him for that. He does have unlimited time.
National Economic Development Board


Walter Lockhart Gordon: All I wanted to say was that I think all of us admire the minister's courage and that we wish him happiness, if not complete political success, in his new venture, and perhaps a less frustrating experience than he may have had during the last few months.
At five o'clock I had almost completed an outline of what we on this side of the house think the functions of a national economic council should be. I had listed a number of points and I should now like to mention the last and concluding point, which is point No. 6. A lot has been said recently about the need for labour and management to understand each other better and to work together more harmoniously in Canada, perhaps in ways that have been developing with some success in Europe. This would be one of the main purposes of the kind of economic council that we envisage.
I mentioned that the kind of economic council we have in mind should make periodic reports to the public on short and long term economic trends. The bill before us does provide for the proposed national economic development board making an annual report to parliament, including the financial statements of the board and the Auditor General's report thereon, but that sort of report is required of all boards, commissions and other agencies of government and is quite different from the kind of reports I had in mind.
Hon. members will recall that over a period of several years the staffs of the departments of trade and commerce and finance held quarterly conferences with economists and other qualified representatives of business, labour, farm groups and fishing interests. These conferences were usually attended by the ministers of finance, trade and commerce, and labour, and by the deputy ministers and other interested officials. They proved of great value to the participants, including the ministers and other government representatives who attended.
Through these conferences government officials met and exchanged views with those on the outside, if I might refer to them in that way, who are engaged in the day to day activities that make the Canadian economy tick. At the same time the representatives of business, labour, farm and fishery organizations, and so on, had an opportunity of expressing their views to the government, in an informal atmosphere, about what was happening in various industries and various sectors of the economy. These meetings were discontinued, I believe in 1959, possibly because the government found it inconvenient to discuss or to be cross-questioned about

National Economic Development Board softening economic conditions at that time. But these are the kind of informal conferences that can be very useful indeed, and they should be reinstated. Undoubtedly they would be sponsored by the kind of economic council that we in the Liberal party have in mind.
If the kind of national economic council the country needs is to be effective, it must be set up in such a way that it will command public respect. This means a full time chairman with a full time staff, and senior people separate from the Department of Finance or, for that matter, any other department. The council itself should consist of part time representatives of all important occupational groups in Canada, in order to provide not only advice to the full time staff but valuable links and contacts with labour, industry, farm groups and various public agencies. This practical, vigorous concept of economic policymaking is not apparent in the bill before us.
Mr. Speaker, I placed on record this afternoon some clear evidence that members of this government are suffering from a kind of schizophrenia when it comes to the question of economic philosophy and long term economic planning. I suggested that before the bill is passed the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour-and I might add certain other ministers whose names I did not mention-should explain their recent conversion to at least some form of economic planning. I think it is particularly important, also, that we should have the views of the Minister without Portfolio, who is reputed to be the real father of this bill. I think he should be asked to submit himself to a paternity test in this matter. In order to accomplish this, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister of Finance to refer this bill to the banking and commerce committee where it could be subjected to the kind of detailed examination and review that is desirable in the case of an important measure of this kind.
(Translation):


Maurice Côté: Mr. Speaker, the bill which is now before the house, entitled "An act to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board" apparently is aimed at imparting to the Canadian economy a direction to be chosen jointly by the various levels; this is good sociological thinking and is something more sensible than the planning philosophies we sometimes hear about, for the kind of planning that some political parties are putting forward would be nothing but a deterrent to free enterprise and the spirit of risk inherent to business.
However, as the member for Red Deer, head of the Canadian Social Credit party, said in this house two days ago:
Boards offer no cure-all answer.
Therefore, the government is mistaken in believing that it can get at the root of the ailment of Canadian economy even though, this act may eventually bring some measure of relief here and there. If we stop to think that nearly 15 per cent of the people in the country are in unthinkably difficult circumstances in spite of the wealth with which we have been so generously endowed by Providence, we will realize that a more dynamic policy is required at the federal level, in order to release commercial and industrial capital and fill the enormous needs of old or new businesses waiting for capital in order to carry out their development projects.
It is unthinkable that as regards the administration of the country, the two old line parties have not yet developed a financial policy in line with the problems of our times, the application of which would have provided Canada with an economic development rate comparable to our demographic expansion.
However, the national economic development board which is proposed deserves our fullest consideration, because everything which can help to increase the number of Canadian industries, owned by Canadians, will improve the lot of those who are unemployed in our country, if at the same time, steps are being taken to grant to consumers the purchasing power required to buy our national production.
The great aim which must be achieved is to take care, without delay, of the consumption of products. If it were not for our outmoded financial system, Canadian men, women and children would be able to consume a national production worth $50 billion. Monetary expansion of debt money as it is practised today can only lead us to a bottomless abyss.
An economic development board, such as the one the government is advocating, shall have to try to put to use again all the industrial potential of the establishments which have closed their doors, for want of financial resources, after having been in business for a number of years. Let me give you an example of this situation. We had in Chicoutimi and in Val Jalbert, in the Saguenay area, pulp mills which for a long time had been the most important in the world. They had been built by one of the greatest industrial geni-

uses of the economic history of Canada, the late J. E. A. Dubuc, who has been a great representative for my riding for more than 20 years and to whom-


An hon. Member:: He was a Liberal.


Mr. Cole:: Exactly.
-I want to pay a posthumous tribute for all his accomplishments in our area.
Those industries suspended their operations about 35 years ago because of financial difficulties. Yet, everything is still there: buildings, forest reserves, the railway, the seaport, the electric power, etc., all of which add up to an investment of approximately $20 million. The national economic development board could thus help those industries to start again manufacturing by-products of wood, such as cellophane and so on.
On the other hand, according to a noted economist, the Saguenay district should normally have about a hundred secondary industries which could process aluminum in a great variety of products. The Saguenay district, with a population of 350,000, requires urgent action, because over 25,000 people suffer seriously at the present time from the economic situation. In the last 20 years, the population has doubled and should reach 500,000 around 1980. Sociologists have already submitted a report in which they recommend the expatriation of thousands of people, which is unthinkable considering that 90 per cent of the population comes from the area and must remain there, if what has been built at the cost of so many sacrifices is not to be demolished.
It is to prevent such a thing, Mr. Speaker, that I advocate the establishment of this national economic development board, because I trust it can improve the lot of my fellow citizens.
(Text):


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, may I on behalf of the British Columbia members of this party extend our wishes for a good trip to our home province to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton), who, we have been given to understand, has just resigned to return to our province to seek the leadership of his party there. We are sorry that his distinguished parliamentary career has ended, and we wish him well in his new field of endeavour.
We believe that the government of Canada has a responsibility to plan Canada's economic future. This is the only way we can bring prosperity and full employment to this land.
National Economic Development Board
The government has submitted a bill to establish a national economic development board. We were led to believe that this would be a genuine planning board, and we hoped it would be. But it is not. After all the promises which were held out to us by the government, after all we were told about this economic development board, what has happened is this:	the government has
laboured and it has produced a gnat-an undernourished gnat. At a time when nations everywhere are adopting social and economic planning, the government of Canada has refused to do so in any wholehearted fashion.
It is obvious to us that what this bill proposes is not a planning board in the true sense. It is a board with only one full time member, namely the chairman. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how can one man, the chairman of a board which will meet only occasionally, be expected to plan the economic future of this country? What is required is a full-scale board headed by a cabinet minister and consisting of economists, statisticians and other qualified people spending their time working on a blueprint for prosperity and full employment to be submitted to the cabinet and to parliament.
Why is social and economic planning so necessary today? We in the New Democratic party believe it is necessary because hundreds of thousands of people are out of work. Many thousands more live under a cloud of insecurity knowing that the plight of the unemployed may soon be theirs. Among the older people and the sick people many are unable to obtain adequate medical care. Young people have not the money to build new homes or to buy old ones.
Canadians realize that social and economic planning is essential in order to get Canada back on her feet and her people back to work. The government has heard the call which has come from all quarters of the country for social and economic planning. This call has come from people who are concerned about the mounting economic disorder which is affecting more and more industries and more and more people. What has been the government's response to this call for planning? Like everything else the government has undertaken, this venture into planning has been undertaken halfheartedly by the government. This bill and this board constitute the government's response to the call for planning and it is, in our view, a response which can only be described as halfhearted, half baked and inadequate.
We in this party have pointed out during the debates which have already taken place this session the results which planning has achieved for other countries. We have pointed

National Economic Development Board out that in Sweden, in Israel and in many of the countries of western Europe social and economic planning has been tried, and it has worked. Unemployment is a thing of the past in those countries. They are flourishing while Canada is declining.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) says Canadians would not accept a program of social and economic planning because that would involve government participation in important economic decisions affecting the welfare of every Canadian; because it would involve some measure of government regulation of the development and location of new industries, some measure of government regulation of the development of new products. For these reasons, the Minister of Finance says Canadians, would not be prepared to accept the notion of planning. X believe the country would welcome a genuine program of social and economic planning. I urge the government to try it and see whether Canadians find it acceptable. I say to the government that unless they do undertake such a program the people will most certainly get rid of them at the first opportunity. During a previous debate, the Minister of Finance said to the house: Give this government a year and we will get rid of unemployment. I ask why this house should give the government a year when the government is unwilling to take steps which are necessary to implement a program of social and economic planning.
It is true that the development board which is submitted to the house in this bill is a first step in the right direction, though it is a halting, hesitant step and one which is long overdue. It is a step which is by no means what is required in the circumstances, but it will be welcomed, as it has already been welcomed, by all parties in this house, subject, however, to a number of misgivings. At last the government has been pushed and prodded into taking this first, hesitant, halting step, and the government can count on the members of the New Democratic party to continue prodding and pressing it to take the necessary additional steps.
Today in Canada the government is expected to take responsibility for the economic conditions which prevail in this country. This means that the government is responsible for bringing about full employment, for bringing about prosperity and for taking all those steps which may be necessary to ensure that every Canadian enjoys an adequate standard of living. But the government cannot discharge this responsibility unless it is prepared to use the necessary powers. Unless it is prepared to intervene in the economic life of the
country it will never be able to discharge its responsibility to bring prosperity and full employment to all Canadians.
Even the United States has seen the necessity for economic planning. When the steel companies of the United States boosted the price of steel by $6 per ton earlier this year, President Kennedy denounced them, saying that "a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities." He pointed out that an increase in the price of steel would mean higher prices for automobiles, for appliances, that in fact, it would mean higher prices for everything in which steel was a component. President Kennedy realized that the decision regarding the price of steel was one which simply could not be left to the steel industry to make; it was a decision affecting millions of people. The steel industry had to be persuaded to cancel the increase, and they did.
Mr. Speaker, surely this demonstrates the necessity for economic planning. The leaders of business and industry themselves have begun to realize this. They have become aware of the mounting concern in this country, a concern which is shared by the people in my own constituency of Vancouver-Burrard and, I am sure, by people residing in the constituencies of all hon. members. The people of this country are concerned about the government's failure to produce a plan and the government's failure to evince a sense of purpose.
Mr. Speaker, all of us recognize the vast benefits which free enterprise has brought, but today free enterprise in many cases is neither free nor is it enterprising. It is ridiculous to talk about free enterprise in an age of administered prices. In steel, in pulp and paper, in every one of our key industries, prices do not fluctuate according to the laws of supply and demand. Instead they are administered. They are decided by agreement among a small group of corporations which control these industries. Yet price levels are of grave concern to all of us. To the old age pensioner living on a fixed income, an increase in prices can make the difference between a comfortable living and bare subsistence. The housewife, in her daily struggle with her family budget, can be defeated by a price increase.
How can the interests of ordinary people be taken into account? How can the interests of people who work in offices and in factories, consumers and the public, be taken into account when important economic decisions are being made? How can ordinary people obtain a seat in the board rooms where their own jobs are being decided,

where their own future is being decided, where the future of the industries in which they are employed is being decided, where the future of the country itself is being decided? This is a problem which faces not only the manual worker employed on an hourly wage; it is a problem which faces the white collar worker who is employed on a salaried basis too. How can these people gain some measure of control over their future? We believe, Mr. Speaker, that this can be done only by a program of genuine social and economic planning, a program which will put the government in the business of charting the future course of our economic affairs, and establishing a planning board responsible to the cabinet and to parliament, charged with the responsibility of making plans which the government, after parliament has approved them, will have the power and the will to implement.
Let us look for a moment where the private enterprise system has got us. We are spending millions duplicating products, and millions more on advertising to induce people to buy them. The citizen is urged on every hand to buy, to consume-to buy a new automobile, to buy a new refrigerator-and the claims which are made for these products are often extravagant, and in many cases absurd. In Canada today many people regard the most important thing in life as the accumulation of money and material possessions. This has depreciated our sense of values and corrupted our society. We in the New Democratic party believe that we should try to build a new society, a society which is based on a philosophy of service, and not one of selfishness. We believe that people should be actuated by an ethic which elevates, not one which corrupts.
While acknowledging the fact that private enterprise must continue to play an important role in our economy, surely we can agree that all important economic decisions affecting the whole country or a whole region or the welfare of any single group of Canadians must be taken by people who are responsible, through the parliament of Canada, to the people whose lives are affected by those decisions. Mr. Speaker, we believe that these decisions must be taken by people whose minds are not fettered by the economic shibboleths that have been uttered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) and other speakers during this session. We believe that they should be taken by people who are not committed to the jargon and the cliches of the past.
I said in an earlier debate today that it was the failure to plan for the future by the old Liberal government that resulted in so
27507-3-137
National Economic Development Board much of Canada's industry and resources falling into the hands of United States interests. After the second world war a wave of United States investment rolled into Canada. It was completely unchecked and unregulated, and when it receded Canada was in trouble. United States capital largely took the form of equity capital. We in Canada did not simply borrow the money to develop our resources and industries; we allowed United States investors to get a stranglehold on our key industries. As a result, more than $700 million went from Canada to the United States last year in profits and dividends. The result has been economic disorder for Canadians. We have no control over many of the industries on which we depend for our livelihood. The government found last June-some say before that-that it had no United States dollars left to meet its commitments to the United States.
There was no reason why United States capital should not have come into Canada in the form of loan capital instead of equity capital. Had we developed our country by obtaining loan capital, we could have retained control over our resources and our industries. We could have paid the money back. But now we will have to save our money and buy our country back.
Some Liberals in this house have joined us in the New Democratic party in deploring the alarming extent in which Canada has become an economic satellite of the United States. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), before he began extolling the virtues of debt-free money, was one of them. But in view of the fact that it was the old Liberal government that allowed this to happen, the promises that have come from the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) on behalf of his party to do something about it sound as hollow as the unredeemed promises the Liberals have been making for the last 43 years about a national health insurance plan.
The government, if it is really going to plan for the future, must take steps to curb exorbitant interest rates. It already supervises the interest rates of the chartered banks, but today it must supervise the interest rates charged by finance companies, small loans companies, department stores and furniture stores. When the ordinary man or woman wants a loan he or she goes to a finance company. If they have not got enough money to buy a television set or refrigerator from a department store, the store will allow them to pay for it on the instalment plan. In each case the borrower or buyer, as the case may be, pays an excessive rate of interest, and there is no federal legislation to prevent this.
2160	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Economic Development Board
The people of this country today owe $2,450 million to the finance companies, small loans companies, department stores and furniture stores. At the same time they owe $1,600 million to the chartered banks. Quite obviously the government cannot expect to control consumer credit unless it is prepared to supervise the lending activities of finance companies, small loans companies, department stores and furniture stores and to curb excessive interest charges.
We believe that planning should be adopted in all government departments. If the idea of planning were adopted in the Department of National Defence, vast sums of money now being spent to purchase obsolete equipment and obsolete weapons could be used to provide low interest loans to municipalities, to provide low interest loans to private enterprise to enable new industries to be located in depressed areas and surplus manpower areas, and to provide low interest loans to young people who want to build homes and cannot do so today.
We in Canada could buy back our industries and our resources. We could do this if we were able to use our own savings for that purpose. But our savings are held by insurance companies, investment companies, mortgage companies and other financial institutions. When a citizen contributes to a pension plan his contributions represent his savings. When he buys a home and starts to pay off the mortgage his payments to the mortgage company represent his savings. When a citizen buys life insurance the premiums he pays represent his savings. But he has no control over these savings.
If we could put these savings to work we could repatriate our industries and our resources. We should require these financial institutions to invest a certain percentage of their holdings in a Canadian development fund. The money thus made available could be used to buy back our industries and resources and to make Canadians masters of their own destiny.
The Social Credit party tells us that we do not have to plan our economy, that all we have to do is print more money.


Mr. Caouetie:: Oh don't say that. We have never said that. You are saying that.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I urge members of the Social Credit party to listen to what I have to say.


David Réal Caouette: Ask Lewis. He knows about it.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) has decided to grace the house with his presence this evening.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, sir. You are kind to me.


Thomas Rodney Berger: No doubt he was anxious to renew his acquaintance with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) as quickly as he could.


David Réal Caouette: We are such good friends.


David Lewis: Speak for yourself.


Thomas Rodney Berger: The trouble is that inflating the money supply will not help; it will simply result in more money chasing the same amount of goods. This will result in galloping inflation and will wipe out the savings of our people and would, of course, work immense hardship on those living on fixed incomes, such as old age pensioners, because it would reduce the purchasing power of their money.
I do not believe and the New Democratic party does not believe that the national economic development board proposed by the government is going to be adequate. We do not believe it is what is required. We had hoped that the government would come forward with a plan and a program, that it would have decided, chastened by the losses it suffered last June, to roll up its sleeves and get down to business; but we have been disappointed in that hope and disappointed in that expectation. However, as I said before, we intend to push, to prod and to press the government to adopt a genuine program of social and economic planning.
We welcome this measure with a good deal of misgiving. Nevertheless it is a first step in the right direction. We deplore the fact that the speech the Minister of Finance made when he introduced the legislation, revealed that the policies of the government are simply a dim reflection, persisting into the 1960's of economic theories that were exploded long ago. We urge the government to get started at once on a genuine program of social and economic planning, a program that will enable it to take charge of the nation's economic affairs, that will enable Canadians to acquire control over their own economic future, that will bring prosperity to Canada and that will provide useful work for every man and woman who wants to work.
We urge the government to undertake such a program. We urge it to get started at once, to begin planning at once, or else the twentieth century will leave Canada far behind.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Will the hon. member permit a question?

Mi. Deputy Speaker: I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard knows that he is being asked if he will answer a question.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Yes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member suggested that according to the plan his party has put forward there would be some direction of investment decisions. My question really is a multiple one. First, do he and his party anticipate any difficulty getting private capital to conform to such a decision? Second, what measures would they have to take to compel conformity?


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member would find it useful to study what has been done in other countries. In the countries I referred to, the Scandinavian countries, the countries of western Europe and the United Kingdom for that matter, they have adopted a location of industry policy in every case, and they have provided low interest loans to private industry to cover the capital cost of establishing new industries in depressed areas. They have instituted a system of licensing new industries, which gives to the government the power to refuse to allow an industry to locate in an area where there is a shortage of labour, in an area where there is already terrific congestion, in an area where the only result of bringing in a new industry could be inflation and further economic dislocation. This has already worked successfully in the nations I have mentioned and I believe that it would work in Canada, provided we had a government that was willing to try it.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the members from the New Democratic party speaking on this bill it is interesting to note-I made mention of this during the supply motion debate not long ago-that they used to talk about nationalization. I understand the leader of the N.D.P., after a certain experience with nationalization in his old province, does not talk about it quite so often any more. Now we see this mystical approach, and it is a mystical approach, which is shared by the Grits opposite revolving around this word "planning". Frankly, I am incapable of defining the word "planning" in relation to this particular debate today.
Members opposite and the members of the N.D.P., as we have often seen in the past, with reckless experimentation have wanted government for the sake of government. Let us put one thing on the record. I am sure that wherever you have government, be it on the municipal, provincial or federal level, 27507-3-137^
National Economic Development Board depending on how you define the word, I suppose you have to have planning. Where we stand opposed to hon. members opposite and hon. members of the N.D.P.-and this is one of the firm principles of this party-is that we do not in a reckless fashion say you should have government for government's sake. In a moment I am going to say what I think, as a young supporter of this administration, hon. members opposite really mean, and members of the N.D.P. really mean when they talk about planning.
Our memories, and I am sure the memories of the people of this nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific, are not very short. They remember a few years ago when some of the fine leaders of this administration battled in opposition during the emergency powers debate. We knew then what members opposite meant by planning. They meant superimposing a system of regimentation on this young nation of ours, and the people of Canada rejected that. I have listened very carefully to the words put on the record today by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon). I have listened to the words put on the record by many leaders of the party opposite, and their pre-1957 pipe line attitude has not changed one bit. When they refer to planning in connection with this bill, they really mean regimentation. They are right in bed together with the N.D.P. They are talking about socialistic bureaucratic controls which the people of this nation have rejected and will continue to reject.
The administration which I support in this House of Commons has written a principle into this bill. When we talk about this board we are talking about a board which will not superimpose this notion of regimentation on the people of Canada to which the hon. member for Davenport made reference. If the people from the Atlantic to the Pacific in days gone by and today are supporting this Progressive Conservative administration, they are supporting it because we have always been loyal to the principle of not tampering with our parliamentary institutions. I know hon. members opposite and hon. members alongside will think: Oh, yes, they talk about cliches to which we related ourselves in the past. It seems to me I have heard a lot of cliches being bandied about in the name of planning in this debate.
One of the principles of the party I support and that many people in this nation support is this notion of respect for individual freedom, for the individual human being. I am not a bit convinced, after listening to the hon. member for Davenport and other hon. members opposite with their smug expertise
2162	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Economic Development Board arguments, that they have changed their emergency powers attitude or their pipe line attitude one little bit. Let us make it quite clear that I have listened patiently during this debate and during many other debates over the past week in this House of Commons, and it is becoming very clear to both the members of this house and the people across this nation that hon. members opposite, together with the N.D.P., are talking about regimentation when they talk about planning.
We know what the party opposite would do to the rights of parliament if they had the chance to form an administration. We have seen them join in a supply motion vote in this reckless power-at-any-cost attitude to vote for debt free money. We know what lies behind this whole approach to parliament.
The hon. member for Davenport suggested that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) might speak in this debate. Frankly, I do not know whether they are going to do so. The hon. member for Davenport also suggested that both the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister spoke against the type of board we are setting up under this measure which is before the House of Commons. Such is not the case. I have consulted the record, and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour have simply spoken against the type of board the Liberals would like to see superimposed on our country today.
I suppose hon. members opposite would like to accuse me of vagueness, but I am attempting to underline the principles to which I am sure many people in this nation are paying great attention.
The hon. member who has just addressed this house spoke of the fact that the present government is responsible in various ways for interest rates. I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members that on many occasions during the past weeks we have seen the Bank of Canada lowering the rate involved.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, our Progressive Conservative party, the party of national unity founded by Macdonald and Cartier, was also the party of economic development which, almost a century ago, started a national program for our great and young country, Canada, under the leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald, when, thanks to his sense of national unity, the Canadian Pacific Railway was built. In that same tradition, the legislation we have here tonight before us is of such importance that it will promote a wide economic development and the unity of our great and young country, Canada.

(Text):
Before I reach the main remarks I have to make in relation to this legislation, I should like to keynote this one idea. Unlike hon. members opposite when they were in power, we do not feel that we have solved all the economic problems in general and in particular.
Much has been done and, of course, much remains to be done. The board which this legislation contemplates will stimulate programs already inaugurated by this administration, programs, I might add, of national unity and national development. Let it be very clear that this board will help us to reach goals already defined. At the same time it should be added that the board will help stimulate programs that the government contemplates having passed by this legislative body.
It will operate with, and assist in, already existing programs for the long and short term benefit of our economy and our nation. Before bringing my brief remarks to a close this evening I would like to put on record some of the long term programs that have already been initiated by this administration, programs that will be encouraged and stimulated by the board that is encompassed by this legislation.
The first heading I would like to discuss is agriculture. This government has put on the statute books a piece of legislation that has given hope to farmers in every province. I am speaking of ARDA. It is funny, you know, that hon. members opposite criticize us for not bringing long term programs to the floor of the House of Commons; but what do they do? Before we have even been given a chance, before we have even signed agreements with the provinces, putting party where they usually put it they torpedo these programs, or try to torpedo them before we can get them working. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) criticized ARDA, but I challenge him to come into Brome-Missis-quoi and criticize ARDA there, where every farmer is conscious of its worth. This great program was introduced in the House of Commons by the Minister of Agriculture who has finally devised an agricultural policy for all farmers in Canada, both in the east and the west.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Pure facade.


William Heward Grafftey: If the hon. member would accompany me into Brome-Missisquoi and tell my people this program is pure fagade he would get a poor response because we, in Brome-Missisquoi, are having one of the first pilot programs under ARDA which will get under way within the next few weeks. As part of our long term agricultural policies we have seen the amendments to the Farm

National Economic Development Board
Credit Act recently brought before the House of Commons. We have seen proposals brought before the house regarding contemplated grain storage programs for eastern farmers. In the whole field of agriculture, and with the long term view, we see this notion of innovation and change-this notion-of innovation and change of which every farmer in Canada is aware; and I merely suggest to hon. members opposite that this is long term legislation already on the statute books. You can call it planning, you can call it whatever you want; but it is there and the people of Canada recognize it.
In the field of trade and commerce what do hon. members opposite call the 25 trade missions which went abroad in the last year representing every major Canadian industry? On these trade missions we have seen representatives of employers and employees, and we have seen prospective buyers from all over the world brought to Canada at the behest of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We have seen the great success of our trade fairs in Toronto, Winnipeg and Montreal. We have seen the great success of our long term approach to export trade. What do hon. members call it? Do they call it planning? Do they call it long term legislation? It is on the statute books and it is working.
Our exports are running well ahead of last year. This means more jobs for more Canadians, and more goods produced here in Canada by Canadians for Canadians. Is this not long term legislation?
The technical schools program of the Department of Labour-is this not long term legislation? Hon. members opposite say we have done nothing and that there are no plans for the long term; but under the Department of Labour's program for technical schools, by which 75 per cent of the cost is paid for new technical schools and for additions and alterations to existing schools, over 400 applications have already been approved. When these projects are completed there will be room for 125,000 students in all these schools from coast to coast. Is this not long term planning?
(Translation):
I want to take this opportunity tonight to direct a few remarks to the premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Jean Lesage. I say to him that he ought to start taking part in this program, with the other provinces of our country, Canada.


Mr. Deschaleleis:: Start by adjusting your program.
(Text):


William Heward Grafftey: Just the other day we saw legislation concerning the problems of automation, introduced by the Minister of Labour. What do hon. members opposite call that if it is not long term legislation?
We have all seen the great work done by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) and the success he has had with his resources for tomorrow conferences.
With regard to fisheries we see the $10 million per year guaranteed loan program. We also see our roads to resources program. What is this if it is not long term and short term legislation for the benefit of Canadians and our economy?
We see the creation of a new forestry department and our gas and oil policies, and we think of the new national energy board which will certainly operate in conjunction with the board we are contemplating this evening.
There is another matter which I would like to underline in my closing remarks. The Progressive Conservative party has always believed that very often local governments and provincial governments can best legislate for themselves and provide the best government for themselves in those areas which were placed under their jurisdiction in the constitution. No government, in a few short years, by long and short term legislation has done more to strengthen the position of local governments and provincial governments than the present administration. I do not want to suggest for a minute that there are not a whole host of outstanding problems still to be solved in this regard. I would like to say that the municipal and provincial relations with this government are certainly different from the relations with the administration before 1957. I ask the house to think for a minute about the municipal winter works program. The municipal winter works program is one of the most successful and dynamic municipal programs ever put on the statute books of this nation. I wonder if there is a member in this house who has not a host of municipalities in his or her constituency which have benefited year after year under this imaginative program. We have seen the trans-Canada highway push ahead. This is part of our national policy, sharing the cost with the provinces, sharing the cost of hospitals, and other projects. We have seen the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation sewage disposal program. All these programs have gone a long way toward strengthening local and provincial governments. They are the result of long and short term legislation which has certainly played its part in strengthening the economy of our nation as a whole.
2164	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Economic Development Board
I would also like to draw to the attention of the house the action taken by the government in fixing the dollar. We have already seen, because of this action, an increase in exports. As I said a few minutes ago, exports are running ahead of last year. We have also seen that because of the pegging of the dollar more goods have been produced in Canada for Canadians-


Paul Tardif: By Canadians.


William Heward Grafftey: -by Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I notice the facetiousness with which hon. members opposite greet the fact that I am putting these things on the record. I know they are trying to sell short this young country of ours. I know that after telling people at home and abroad that everything is gloom and doom they do not like to hear these things talked about; but the facts are there and the people of this country know about them. This new board will work in conjunction with the government on the programs I have already mentioned; it will work in conjunction with programs that this administration is putting before, and will continue to put before, the House of Commons for consideration. I am sure that the people of Canada and the members of this administration will tackle these programs with optimism. Optimism is one of the principles of the party I support. This kind of Liberalism, born in Ricardian gloom and doom, was never more evident than it is today. I have never seen anything like it in my life. In this reckless, power-at-any-cost attitude, the Liberal party has adopted the principle of pessimism. But because of what you have said in the last five years the people of Canada are becoming suspicious of you. Have you ever said one good thing about this nation?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


William Heward Grafftey: Put it on the record, if you have said it. You cannot, because you have not said it. You go from coast to coast preaching gloom and doom. Well, this administration and the members of the party I support are going to tackle these programs with optimism. Optimism is the keynote of faith; optimism is the mood of this nation, in spite of the pessimism and the doom you like to preach. But this is not a program of gloom and doom or an attitude of gloom and doom that the people of Canada are going to buy. They have caught on to that game and they are going to join this administration in tackling all these programs which are going to work in conjunction with this board; they are going to tackle them with the high note of

optimism which has always been the principle and the keynote attitude of the party that I support in this house.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary who has just spoken would be interested in a deal. I would suggest to him that if he will pay my expenses to visit his riding I will take the dare and perhaps suffer the wrath of his constituents, if he will accept the invitation to come to my constituency and face the industrial riding of Hamilton East. Perhaps then the hon. member would come down to reality. Perhaps he would like to come to my office on a Saturday morning and see lines and lines of unemployed men-it even gets to the point where you have to hand out numbers-seeking jobs in what may be considered the industrial heart of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Doom and gloom.


John Carr Munro: Yes, and it is doom and gloom. That is how the citizens of Canada felt last June when they showed by their vote that they had lost confidence in this government. At any rate, my offer is open and I would love the parliamentary secretary to come to Hamilton and speak to these unemployed men. Perhaps his colourful phraseology will make them feel better, as they go home at night without a job and without sufficient funds to maintain a family properly. It was also interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary talk about this Conservative government and how it stands for the freedom of the individual. Perhaps he does not remember the Coyne affair, when Mr. Coyne- perhaps one of the foremost financial people of this country-was denied even a hearing when he was arbitrarily fired by this government.
Perhaps when the parliamentary secretary talks about and extolls his party for honouring the rights of parliament he will feel the dissatisfaction of the Canadian people over the fact that this parliament, after sitting for two months, has not even given this house a chance to debate the surcharges that his government imposed a few months ago. When he talks about all his government has done, and its accomplishments, when he talks about the manpower adjustment bill that was introduced the other day, and indicates that his government-though he does not like the word "planning"-is taking into consideration all these factors of dislocation, perhaps it would be advisable for him to consider whether it would not have been better for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to have brought in his manpower adjustment bill before he cancelled the Avro Arrow and threw about 18,000 men out of work. That

not only completely wrecked, in my opinion, the aeronautical industry in this country but threw away millions of dollars of investment that this country and its citizens had made in developing perhaps some of the finest technical brains in the world in this field, who have now all emigrated to the United States.
If one looks over the account, he will recall the bungling of the Avro Arrow, the stupidity of the Coyne affair and the international disrepute brought on Canada by the leader of the Conservative party when he went over to London and tried to blackmail Britain into staying out of the common market. Perhaps account should be taken of how the Prime Minister a few years ago talked about a 15 per cent diversion of trade to Britain. How colourful that was, and how it appealed to the nationalistic sense of the Canadian people and their love of the mother country. Then Britain called this bluff and said: "Put up or shut up", and we did not hear another word. When one considers this sorry record over the last three or four years I do not think the parliamentary secretary can say that we are running the countrj7 down. I think the people of Canada know who has run this country down.
The previous speaker seemed to be quite clear as to what the group in the far corner meant by planning-regimentation and so on. But he never said what he himself meant by this bill. If it does not mean planning, what else does it mean? If it does not mean planning, it is just a paper facade put up to make the government look good. What is it? Is it something dreamed up by John Fisher or some advertising executive in the Conservative party to delude the Canadian people once again into thinking the government is going to do something? When one looks at this bill and examines it, he is frightened that it may be just another attempt by the government to delude the Canadian people-to raise their hopes and make them think the government is going to take some definite action when, in reality, those hopes are going to be dashed as they realize that this board, after all, is nothing more than a branch of the Department of Finance without any effective power to recommend a long range solution to the problems which face this country today. If that happens, this will be the last occasion upon which such a trick will be perpetrated upon the Canadian people.
If this is not just window dressing, if this is not just another catchy phrase to form the basis of another clouded vision, to foster a progressive image with no real substance, it will certainly not succeed. But if it is an honest and sincere attempt on the part of the government to provide Canada with the
National Economic Development Board foundation for long range policies, to provide Canada with a social and economic purpose and to rid this country of the plague of unemployment; if it is truly meant to foster among all Canadians a wholesome pride in their country and in the future of their country then let the government show it through the substance of their bill and by detailed provisions in the bill itself with respect to the clause setting out the duties of the board. Let them show that they mean this board to have independence-that they mean to bring in the finest brains of the country to raise this country out of the doldrums of unemployment and international disrepute.
If, and only if, the bill contains more adequate provision in this connection can the well-founded suspicions of this party and of all Canadians be set at ease to some extent.
I suggest that these suspicions are, indeed, well founded if one considers the derision which was heaped on the party to which I belong when my hon. friend from Essex East (Mr. Martin) proposed measures similar to this years ago. I suggest those suspicions are well founded when we recall that any such proposals coming from this, or any other party were scorned by hon. members opposite as an attempt to seize more power for a bureaucracy that would trample the rights of the people. Now we see the government coming up with yet another board-a board which is apparently going to do no planning at all, if we can rely on what the hon. parliamentary secretary told us this evening; is it any wonder that the Canadian people are so suspicious when the government, now, has decided to adopt such measures itself?
The government must feel, in terms of the unemployment which now prevails in this country, that this board is going to be the answer. Well, if this board fails, if it is just another piece of window dressing, just another gimmick, I am afraid this is going to be one thing which the people of Canada will not forget. They will not allow themselves to be deluded again. They were told about "the vision of the north" and all that nonsense. They were told that this government would get rid of unemployment, only to find that this was another catchy gimmick with no meaning whatsoever.
Another point which is disturbing to many is the similarity of phraseology between the words used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) when he introduced this bill and what was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) when he introduced the bill setting up the national productivity council some two years ago. This makes me suspect that this is to be just another board, perhaps one which overlaps the functions of the national productivity council just at

National Economic Development Board a time when the latter body is beginning to render a service. If that is so, and if the government has given no real thought to a clear demarcation of responsibility between the two boards, this will turn out to be another fiasco. The setting up of a second board would derogate from any real accomplishment which might be rendered by either of them. If this is so, prominent citizens who now serve on the productivity council are going to resign. Should this happen, and should everything collapse in one horrible fiasco, how long would it be before any responsible citizen will sit on another board designed to come up with some policies and lead this country out of the wilderness?
It would be well for this government to take this duplication into consideration. The Minister of Finance should be forced to tell us in committee just what detailed plans this government has laid down to ensure that there is no overlapping of functions as between the two boards. I suggest, as was suggested in the Globe and Mail not too long ago, that the government should consider the complete integration of these two boards. No one here denies the necessity of a national economic development board; but at the same time no one wants duplication with the result that one or other of them may not be able to work effectively at all. After examining the similarity in the terms of reference and in the constitution of these two boards, let the government tell us what it plans to do to ensure that the morale of both these boards is not completely devastated at an early stage. The government must have read the annual report of the national productivity council in which the council indicated that it cannot effectively do the job until its powers are considerably widened. The council went on to say in its report that it intended during the coming year to take into consideration the whole scope of fiscal policy and make recommendations with respect to it. That statement can be found in the annual report. So if this government intends to have these boards working effectively together it should take this into consideration and be ready to answer questions put on this subject when we reach the committee stage.
I should like to refer, now, to the manner in which the Minister of Finance spoke when he introduced this bill. He talked, as did the last speaker, about the many fine programs taken up by this government over the last few years. As he spoke of them in such grandiose terms, it made us wonder whether the government sincerely felt that such a board was necessary. If that is so, I would ask why it was recommended by the government. Was it for nothing else but to delude the public?

The minister talked of these programs. I would say-and there is no doubt in my own mind and I am sure the minds of the Canadian people as well-that there is tremendous need for a board to recommend policies which this government, or any other government for that matter, will adopt. This need becomes abundantly clear when one considers the tight money policy, with its resultant effects on lack of productivity, the declining economic growth of the country, the terrible investment lag, the terrible balance of payments position-almost $1 billion a year-the increasing percentage of manufacturing industries which are controlled by foreigners.


An hon. Member:: You worry too much.


John Carr Munro: When you take all those problems, can there be any doubt how terrible is the need in this country for a national economic development board which has been well planned in detail by the government before it is constituted?
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that I worry too much. I do worry too much. I think that when the Liberal party came out with a program for such a board, we felt it was important and would rid the country of unemployment. Therefore, can you blame any of us for worrying if this government sets up a board which brings the whole thing into disrepute? I say that that worry is amply justified in this case.
I say that the government should also take into consideration the overlapping duplication of services which may possibly occur not only between this new board and the national productivity council, but also between it and the national research council and the programs which are being instituted under the Department of Labour for vocational training. Such programs have always been within the terms of reference of both these boards. If this government has read the annual report of the national productivity council they will find that they have had discussions with the Department of Labour as well as the national research council. They have had discussions with the Department of National Defence, who are instituting research on their own, to try to co-ordinate all their activities. When we see this multiplicity of boards and programs all interwoven, surely it behooves this government to take into consideration the fact that all these programs must be integrated if the board named in this bill is to have any real influence in the country.
In conclusion, I should just like to comment on the question of planning. As the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon)

explained, this party does unequivocally endorse planning. It all depends on the interpretation you put upon the word. We realize, as every Canadian does now, that some type of planning is necessary in order to cure all these ailments which are now afflicting the Canadian economy. If our friends want to be sincere for one moment, as I hope they do, they must admit that planning is necessary or they would not have adopted the proposal of the Liberal party in the first place and come up with this bill. It is the hope of all members in this party that when this bill is discussed clause by clause in committee the government will come up with the answers and prove its sincerity. This new board, I submit, should integrate all programs and come up with long range policies; and the government should say that it does not intend again to delude the Canadian people and allow the current situation with regard to unemployment to continue.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. member for Hamilton East a question? Would he give consideration to the hon. member for Hamilton South taking the place of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) in that little debate he wanted?


John Carr Munro: I would certainly give it consideration, but I think the hon. member for Hamilton South is well aware of the terrible unemployment problem in the city of Hamilton. If he is not, it is truly alarming. Might I add this. Is the hon. member aware that during the month of July, 1961, the supposed height of our employment peak in Hamilton, 7,000 people were on relief, not even counting the people receiving unemployment insurance?
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when I hear members who represent the two old line parties quarrelling in this house, I am reminded of that story about the two parties being exactly the same, that is, that one represents the left foot and the other the right foot, but that both remain a pair of feet just the same.


Mr. Loiselle:: But you are between the two feet.


David Réal Caouette: I get it, but, on the other hand, some hon. members sitting on my right have not even got a head to put between the two feet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask all members to co-operate so that no two of them speak at the same time.


David Réal Caouette: 
Mr. Cook:: It might be to create a retirement place.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, probably a retirement place, as my hon. friend from Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Cook) says, a retirement place


for more officials, more important people who have shown their mettle within the old line political parties. Thank God, they will not last much longer from now on.


An hon. Member:: What an optimist.


Mr.. Caouette:: Mr. Speaker, the distribution of goods and services to Canadian consumers: that is the problem. The problem is not one of production, but of distribution. Now, as I said a moment ago, in order to help the Canadian economy to meet the needs of the Canadian people, we must have a system which will allow the achievement of such a purpose. And such an achievement will come inasmuch as Canadian consumers will have in hand the purchasing power needed to buy the products which now exist in Canada.
When we have the purchasing power, when I myself have the purchasing power, I do not need the federal government or the Quebec provincial government or the Ontario government to tell me what to do or what not to do, what to buy or what not to buy. I am intelligent enough to choose and decide by myself what I need. My neighbour, when he has the chance, or the permission, can do exactly the same thing, under the same circumstances.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, instead of attacking us-


An hon. Member:: Talk to us about rabbits.


David Réal Caouette: I do not know who is howling behind the curtains. I should like to see his face so as to know to whom I should address myself.
We sincerely believe that to the extent that trade, industry, and factories can produce goods and services, the government should instruct the Bank of Canada to make financially possible what is physically possible.


An hon. Member:: You will have to convert the Liberals.


David Réal Caouette: I hear one of my good friends say that we will have to convert the Liberals. And now they applaud and laugh. I only warn those charming members of the Liberal opposition to be careful, because in their ridings there are some people more intelligent than they are themselves. Those people understand the situation better than some of those who sit in this house.
I do not wish to offend any hon. member. The only thing I would suggest is that members of parliament keep in close touch with their constituents who are at present-

National Economic Development Board
Right after the election, the hon. member for Mercier should have kept his peace if he did not wish to appear as lacking in intelligence; however I do not wish to offend him.
Mr. Speaker, the people are getting increasingly aware of the facts. If they are abandoning the old line political parties nowadays, as I did myself 25 years ago, it is precisely because those politicians come to them with nothing except electoral promises that they do not intend to keep. We had the Liberals for 22 years in Ottawa. We had the Conservatives for five years. The latter are a perfect substitute for the former. They make up a real equation.


An hon. Member:: You have to be blind to say such a thing.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, we are blind, but we did not see the light of day for 22 years, because the Liberals were in power and that is why everybody is blind today in Canada, because they were in power for too long.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-87 provides for the setting up of a national economic development board. We are all for it. We are in favour of such a board, as long as it does not impose its wishes on production. It will have to be a board which will facilitate the flow of goods towards the consumer, a board which will enable those goods to find their way to that market which is of the utmost importance to Canada, the domestic market.
We are sending missions all over the world. We try to export our products but the demand of our domestic market is not met. And when we come forth with Social Credit solutions, we are told: "Yes, but then we will have overproduction". That is not the case yet, that is not the problem. The problem for Canada today is not one of overproduction, it is a problem of underconsumption and it is concerning this underconsumption that I should like to see an agency, a national board of economic development, during its proceedings, more seriously consider this whole problem.
When we talk about planning, like the leader of the Canadian socialist party, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam repeated again in Quebec the other day, we think of ways to:
1. Discover what the people want their economy to produce-
Since when did the people say they wanted their economy to produce?
-and how they want production to be carried out; (an economic council made up of various economic agents, of consumers, etc. would have the responsibility of informing the commissioners on that point);
2. Discover the present and future possibilities of the economy.
Everything has now been covered. Let us go and see our professional engineers, our qualified experts across Canada.
No matter the colour of political parties, everybody will admit that we can produce twice, three, four or five times as much at any time if we have orders.
Set a number of objectives, according to the needs of the people and the possibilities of the economy.
"A number of objectives".
The prime objective of the economy is to meet the needs of the Canadian people. The economy will be sound and will really reach its objective only when it gives to one and all a share of the goods that God's nature and man's industry offer.
That share should be sufficient to bring to one and all at least a decent living inasmuch as man is replaced in production or productive element in Canada by progress, science and automation. To that extent, let us give men, women and children purchasing power enabling them to buy the products made by machines, thanks to scientific progress.
At that time, we will respect the creatures of God-men, women and children-we will also respect industry and progress. At that time, we will reach a balanced economy, contrary to what we are going through now in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the fourth argument of the socialists is this:
Finally, establish a plan that will enable us to reach those goals.
Let us ask Canadian industry if it needs a government plan to produce. The industry in Canada has always produced, and it is capable of producing even more.
Do we need plans? Plans have been made in Saskatchewan during 17 years and it is the only province where the population is decreasing-it will even lose two federal ridings-and where the population has had enough of state socialism. That is what is happening in Saskatchewan.
But let us compare that province and Alberta, her neighbour, which has been administered by a Social Credit government for 27 years. It is the only province in Canada which is debt free, which has a reserve of $400 million in its treasury, and it is the only one, apart from Manitoba, where there is no provincial tax.
2170	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Do not cry "Oh, oh," the facts are there, just check.
Alberta, which has been administered by Social Crediters for 27 years has obtained results. If a small province can obtain results for her population, there is even more reason for us to obtain results for the whole Canadian nation. We have the power, the jurisdiction, we have all we need to put the Bank of Canada to the service of the man, to ensure that man transcends money.
At that time, abundance in Canada will work towards the fulfilment of the human being, the basis of Canada's growth. Even if that works against industry and finance, we are all for it.
Do you want to ask me a question? You will have to wait until tomorrow morning, because it is now two minutes to ten.
(Text):


John (Jack) Davis: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


David Réal Caouette: Did you want to ask me a question?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes.


David Réal Caouette: Did you hear what I said?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, I should like to ask the hon. member for Villeneuve what country or what part of the world has adopted a system similar to the one which he advocates and which, in his opinion, has been reasonably successful?


David Réal Caouette: That is a very good question, and I am pleased to answer it. We do live in a process of evolution. Before having electricity, we had candles. Now, the candles of our economic system are the Liberals and the Conservatives. With Social Credit we are going to have, after all, the economic electricity so that we can live decently in our country.


John Ross Matheson: If we were able to increase the purchasing power of every one of the 18 million Canadians in this country ten times, to what extent does the hon. member for Villeneuve really believe the sales of our metals, our plastics, our wire, rubber, wheat, steel rails and lumber would increase? Do we not need a market of somewhere around 200 million people?


David Réal Caouette: I agree with the hon. member that we do need an increase in our market. Now, you have to agree with me that the first market is our domestic market. Then, we go into the world market and if we produce more for the Canadian dollar we will be able to compete with all the nations in the international market. It is our belief that you have to increase your production, and this production of ours has not been increasing by more than one per cent yearly in the last five years.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire of the house leader what we will be doing tomorrow, and can the house leader give some indication of the business for Monday and part of next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will be on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and my hope is that we will get beyond the first item and perhaps complete that department. On Monday, the Minister of Transport is available to consider his resolution dealing with the Freight Rates Reduction Act. If that is completed in good time we might take some of the items which are on the order paper in his name, Bill No. C-59 dealing with public harbours, the resolution concerning the Aeronautics Act, the resolution concerning a railway line in New Brunswick. Some of these are short and if they are finished we would go back to Bill No. C-54 dealing with the Coal Production Assistance Act.
I said I would give some indication of the business we would like to advance, so far as possible, between now and the Christmas adjournment. The matters which we would like to get on with following Monday are the national economic development board, which we have been discussing, the Atlantic development board, the productivity council, the measure concerning industrial change and manpower adjustment, the electoral boundaries commission, the capital expenditures of the C.N.R., the Food and Drugs Act and such other items as we can manage in the next two weeks or so.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 30, 1962