1962-02-27

Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the house is aware that the government has decided to extend its diplomatic relations with the independent states of Africa by opening two new resident diplomatic missions. On January 29 I informed hon. members of the appointment of the first Canadian high commissioner to Tanganyika, and today I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Fulgence Charpentier as first Canadian ambassador to the republics of Cameroon Chad, Gabon and Congo (Brazzaville). He will be resident in the capital of Cameroon, Yaounde, with concurrent accreditation to the other three republics.
I am also pleased to announce that diplomatic relations have been established with the republics of Togo and Senegal. The Canadian high commissioner in Accra, Ghana, has been accredited as Canadian ambassador to the government of Togo; the Canadian high commissioner in Lagos, Nigeria, who is already accredited to Sierra Leone, has been accredited to the government of Senegal. This brings the number of African states with which Canada has formal relations to a total of 15. It is hoped that through arrangements for non-resident accreditation of our two Canadian heads of mission in Ghana and Nigeria, diplomatic relations will be established in the near future with additional French speaking states in west Africa.
The decision to establish diplomatic relations with these French speaking African states has been taken because of the increasing importance of Africa in world affairs and the growing influence of these states both within Africa and at the United Nations. The French African delegations have played a notably constructive part in the deliberations of the general assembly, and the Canadian delegation has worked closely with them on many issues. Sharing a common French cultural heritage, Canada and the French speaking states of Africa have a mutual interest in establishing diplomatic relations. The opening of diplomatic relations with these
countries will afford an excellent opportunity for strengthening these natural ties.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a field in which Canada can render great service. In 1961 the government established an annual program for educational assistance to the French speaking countries of Africa, which the new mission will help to administer. Mr. Charpentier's appointment will give us a better insight into the problems and requirements of these countries, particularly in areas where Canadian experience will be useful.
Mr. Charpentier, a native of Ste. Anne de Prescott, Ontario, is well known on parliament hill and in the city of Ottawa. He was chief of French Journals in the House of Commons for some years and during the war was director of censorship, receiving the M.B.E. for his services. He was a controller of the city of Ottawa during the years 1932 to 1935. Since joining the Department of External Affairs in 1947 he has served abroad in a number of posts and is at present head of the passport office. Mr. Charpentier, who will take up his appointment shortly, will find that both French and English are used in Cameroon and therefore his proficiency in both these languages will be put to good use.
(Translation):

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the announcements he made as the house met, this afternoon, and in view of the fact that there are a great number of Ethiopians who speak French fluently and also that a number of Canadians are serving the cause of education in Ethiopia, is the government considering the possibility of accrediting a Canadian representative to the government of that country in the near future?
(Text):


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we have under consideration accreditation with respect to several other African countries, but I am unable to make any announcement at this time.

Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposilion):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make on the reported opinion expressed yesterday by a United States military source in Washington to the effect that nuclear warheads shipped from the United States to Canada after war broke out would not be of use?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I do not intend to make any observations on a matter as important as this on the basis of some report appearing in the press by some anonymous individual.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister inform us if we can take it from his statement that atomic warheads would be available to Canadian troops in the event of war, that there is a secret agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States in respect of the provision of atomic warheads at that time?


John George Diefenbaker: For the edification of the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I would rec-commend your wise words of yesterday. "There has been a substantial exchange on this important matter. If it cannot be clarified in five supplementary questions, I think it might better be deferred to be the subject of a debate".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the Prime Minister not answer the question, which is a simple one? Is there an agreement or is there not an agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
knows he is not permitted to insist on an answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There must be an agreement if we are going to have them ultimately.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of a Canadian Press report that the British cabinet today reached a final decision on the constitution for Northern Rhodesia which would apparently allow for the possibility

of a negro majority, and in view of the influence enjoyed by Canada in commonwealth relations, would the minister assure the house that Canada will use its good offices with the government of the Rhodesian federation to urge that government to accept this evolution toward democracy?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the minister wants to undertake to answer a question of that kind. I do not wish to be unduly restrictive, but it seems clear to me that the hon. member's question is an invitation to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to interfere in matters which are not under his jurisdiction.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was not intended in that way, and I leave it to the good judgment of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as to how the matter will be handled.
(Translation):
[Later:)



STATEMENT OF THE QUEBEC PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. V. F. Dubois (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Does the minister have any comments to make about the statement attributed to the premier of the province of Quebec which appeared in this morning's issue of the Gazette concerning a provincial lottery organized by the government?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: I have discussed this matter with members of the Quebec provincial government and there has even been an exchange of correspondence between us. Everything was purely informal, on a personal basis and only of a general nature. In fact, I have received two letters, one from Mr. Lesage and the other from Mr. Gerin-Lajoie. Both were marked "personal".
That is why I am most surprised to hear that Mr. Lesage could say-as reported- that he had made official representations which called for a reply on behalf of the government.
During our personal talks I was asked whether or not it would be possible to amend the Criminal Code so as to permit the organization of lotteries by the provincial government. I had pointed out that there were a number of problems involved, that the questions of lotteries and other related matters were presently under consideration and that I would inform them in due time of any change in our position.
Practically speaking, the question of amending the Criminal Code to authorize the organization of lotteries by provincial governments

is obviously one which concerns all the provinces. It would therefore be difficult, if not improper, to get in touch with one province only, without consulting the others. We have not consulted them and I am therefore not in a position to make an official statement.
Indeed, the manner in which Mr. Lesage made public the contents of personal correspondence amply shows the danger and difficulties encountered in answering such letters, even on a personal basis.
(Text):



LONG TERM CREDITS FOR EXPORTS OF CATTLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has any action been taken on the resolution, a copy of which was forwarded to him from the Holstein-Friesian Association of Canada, as to the need for granting long term credits to countries which are financially sound and have proven their interest in the importation of Canadian cattle?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving notice of his intention to ask this question. I have been informed that the officials of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation have been carrying out a continuous study of terms of payment offered by competitors in other countries for the sale of cattle, and that such terms are currently cash, or very short term. They have informed me that the Export-Import Bank of Washington did provide two credits to Mexico some years ago, but these credits were of special nature due to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Mexico which decimated their stocks, and they were urgently in need of fresh stocks at that time.
In the event that a situation were to arise similar to the unfortunate event experienced in Mexico, the Export Credits Insurance Corporation would be prepared to consider approving credit terms extending beyond those presently being granted. In the meantime it is the corporation's view that cattle should continue to be sold on terms normal in international trade, which are cash or very short term.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Harold Hicks: I also have a question for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. In view
Inquiries of the Ministry of the fact that the record of performance testing of dairy cattle has apparently outgrown the ability of the present staff to handle the work, has consideration been given to complying with the resolution from the Holstein-Friesian Association of Canada that the necessary funds be provided to ensure that this valuable work be carried on at the level required for the continued improvement of our dairy cattle?


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: The
resolution to which the hon. member for Fraser Valley referred has been received from the secretary of the Holstein-Friesian association. In brief it requests the government to provide the resources necessary to ensure the carrying on of record of performance testing services at the level required for the continued improvement of dairy cattle. This the government has done.
Ontario is the only province in which any difficulty exists in taking qualified breeders under R.O.P. inspection as soon as they apply. There has been a heavy increase in the demands for this service in Ontario. Since 1957 the number of herds under inspection in Ontario has increased by 335, and the number of inspectors by 13.
If the facilities are not available to take new applicants under inspection when they apply, they are placed on a waiting list until they can be accommodated through the provision of more staff or the normal dropping out of others under the policy. It has been considered preferable to follow this practice rather than reduce the service to breeders under test. This has created no substantial delays. There have been no applications prior to January 1, 1962 which have not been taken care of, and there have been only 13 firm applications since that date which are now on the waiting list.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Picltersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can also put a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, about the recent theft of a valuable collection of butterflies. Could the parliamentary secretary say whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Winnipeg Tribune that no one has checked the collection since 1958, and could he say whether this is another example of the neglect of the present government?


Mr. Pigeon:: Butterflies are your friends.
1296	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on a newspaper article. I would point out to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that this matter is under consideration now by the R.C.M.P. and is being looked after very well.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the search for the butterflies, have they checked Liberal stomachs?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, as one old soldier to another, at the request of several other old soldiers in receipt of war veterans allowance. In view of the fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs is sending a notice to all recipients of war veterans allowance and widows allowance reading as follows: "The reduction in your war veterans allowance is the result of an equivalent increase in your old age security pension," would the minister inform the house whether he has received any protests concerning this policy? If so, is consideration being given to a review being made that would ensure that our older veterans and their widows, to whom we owe so much, are able to share this improvement in the pensions given to Canadians over 70 years of age?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this question is very important to a great many people. We have had some complaints due to a misunderstanding.
When war veterans allowances were first introduced nearly 30 years ago they were intended to be of assistance to those older returned soldiers who were unable to provide for themselves the necessities of life. It was felt that a number of former members of the forces, because of the arduous and dangerous nature of their service, had become pre-aged. The legislation was thus designed to provide financial assistance to service qualified veterans, in cases of need, at an age earlier than old age pensions become available to the population generally.
War veterans allowances were never intended to be paid independently of other sources of income, even where such income arose from war disability pensions or from pensions payable under social legislation. The purpose of the allowance is to assist those deserving and qualified veterans and their


dependants who are suffering from financial stringency, and in determining qualification for an allowance all other forms of income must be taken into consideration.
The result is that when those people who are of an age to receive the old age security pension get an increase in that pension, that is part of their total permissible income and is so recorded for war veterans allowances purposes. The war veterans allowance is not then as great as it was in the earlier month.
May I point out that it was only last year, just nine months ago, that the following changes were made in war veterans allowance. Previously the monthly rate for a single veteran had been $70; nine months ago it was raised to $84. The monthly rate for a married veteran was $120 nine months ago, and it was raised to $144. The ceiling for total income was increased, for a single veteran from $1,080 to $1,296 and for a married veteran from $1,740 to $2,088. In other words, a 20 per cent increase in the war veterans allowance was made effective June 1, 1961.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I understand the logic of the minister's reply to my friend the hon. member for Kootenay West, but is it not true that the statement just made implies the institution of a means test with respect to old age pensions to war veterans?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The War Veterans Allowance Act has contained the so-called means test right from the beginning. There is nothing new in this at all. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that there is the utmost sympathy on the part of this government for veterans and their dependants. The increase of last year which I mentioned was the third increase since we came into power with regard to war veterans allowance, and similarly the disability pensions were increased.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister not realize that the statement he has now made amounts to a formal announcement that the government does not intend to carry out another election promise?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, every election promise that has been made has been carried out or will be carried out in the near future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: "No one will suffer".



WHEREABOUTS OF PORTRAIT OF LATE R. B. BENNETT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister and regret that I was unable

Alleged Lack of Economic Growth
to send him notice. I rise as one who has a great respect tor tradition, protocol and things being done in the proper way.
I have in my hand a cutting from the Calgary Herald which is headed "Bennett Painting Missing; One Here" which tells the story of a pressman visiting Calgary lawyer E. J. McCormick, Q.C., an active Liberal. He asked him if the portrait he has of the late R. B. Bennett was the missing one from Ottawa. Mr. McCormick told the reporter in effect that he must ask the Prime Minister, and refused to answer.
I have two grounds for my question. First of all, the Liberals are already taking members of this group into their fold. Surely they are not going to take Conservatives into their fold. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether this is the missing portrait, and whether it has been turned over to the Liberals?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Everyone is flocking to the Liberal party.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can only say the Conservative party does not allow its great leaders, even its historical ones, to be adopted by the Liberal party despite the fact that a certain historian, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, is rewriting history for the benefit of his party.
There is a question on the order paper in connection with this matter. However, if I may be allowed to answer the question at this time I shall be pleased to do so, although the question on the order paper will be answered in due course.


Mr. Speaker:: As the Prime Minister has reminded me of a fact I had overlooked, I think the preferable course would be to give priority to the question which appeared first on the order paper. That is the practice I have tried to follow. Perhaps the Prime Minister would reserve his answer for the written question.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one part of the question that is not on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, and to which I may be permitted to reply. The portrait in question presented to the people of Canada by Lord Beaverbrook hangs in the prime minister's office here, and is not in Calgary.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The mystery is solved.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance at this time give some guidance as to when he will be bringing in his 1962 budget?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minisier of Finance):: I think I may say, Mr. Speaker, it will not be this month.

The house resumed, from Monday, February 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Miss LaMarsh, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Herridge.



ALLEGED LACK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH

Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last evening I was discussing certain phases of the gross national product. I feel it is important to put on record figures indicating the gross national product in certain years between 1952 and 1960. In 1952 the gross national product was approximately $24 billion. By 1956 it had increased to $30.5 billion, an increase of $6.5 billion. By 1960 it had risen to $36 billion, and indications are that at the end of the present fiscal year it will stand at $37.5 billion. I point out that this figure reflects and bears a relationship to the loss of the wheat crop last year.
Mention has been made in this debate of the measures the government has taken to meet current problems. I cannot resist commenting on the quick action taken by the government last year with respect to the crop failure, the measures undertaken to provide financial assistance, to arrange for forage for cattle and to hold firm the market.
It is interesting that there has been a phenomenal growth in the gross national product despite the gloomy assertions placed on the record by hon. members of the Liberal party. I think it does no harm to review the facts. In 1957 when the Conservative government took office there were reasonable grounds for the gloom of hon. members of the opposition; not because we had taken over, but because they knew that in 1957 nothing could arrest the recession which had gradually been developing since 1955.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Who is rewriting history now?


David Vaughan Pugh: The hon. member for Trinity asks who is rewriting history now. In reply I will fling in his teeth the frequently reiterated question: who caused the depression of 1930? The Liberals never heard of the depression of 1929 which was under way before the Conservative party came into power. They said we caused the depression in 1930. The Liberals formed the government up to that date and they were responsible for that recession. They were
1298	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth equally responsible for the recession of 1957 and the aftermath. They had their report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You spent two years denying there was one.


David Vaughan Pugh: It would do no harm to review the situation when we came in. There was tight money in 1957. Anyone who is familiar with conditions in his constituency at that time will know that tight money was in effect. Credit was tight and not available to the average businessman. Take another example, national housing. It was practically a nullity. There is no question about it. It was a case of try to get funds for national housing. They had it in the kitty; they had $50 million left over, but you could not get a loan. You could not get the thing processed. If you talked to any lawyers in your constituency at that time who handled these matters, they would tell you exactly the same thing, namely, "Sorry; we put in for a loan but we could not get them processed." They had $100 million, but if you examine the records now-and I will raise the matter later-there are $3 billion available for this national housing program. It is a matter of $100 million as against $3 billion.
Just to go back over this review, we had tight money, credit at a standstill, national housing at a standstill and our trade balance with other countries in a rather impossible situation-the Minister of Finance just put it on the record today-with $713 million of an imbalance, an alarming state. That is what the businessman was faced with when we came into office. Regardless of what has been said, there is no question but that when we came into office in 1957 we were obliged to take certain steps. It was necessary to do so for the economy of Canada. We took those steps. This government stepped right in.
As far as the over-all picture is concerned, we have long had a national policy which we are not backward in bringing forward. It is a policy which we talked about all along, and when the time came we put it into effect. Legislation was immediately forthcoming with regard to agriculture. I think it is fair to put on the record now what was done for agriculture in the last four years. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, they were rather tough years according to the Liberals. They are the people who have said those years have been bad. But despite all that, this government in the last four years has put in for agriculture twice as much as the previous government did in the previous four years.
The facts are irrefutable. I have mentioned national housing, which has been built up now so that housing is going ahead all over
[Mr. Pugh.l

the continent. The figure of $100 million has become $3 billion. In 1956-57 social justice payments stood at $1.3 billion. They have now become $2.3 billion, or in other words another $1 billion put out in social justice payments. Then as to dominion-provincial relations, they were improved immediately and the federal contributions all round have increased by 70 per cent over those made by the former administration. Those are dollars which have been put out to the provincial governments. There has been a 70 per cent increase. As to veterans legislation, we just had a brief rundown on that matter. Direct payments in the last year were up more than 50 per cent over those in the last year of the Liberal regime. In other words the figure which was $200 million has now become $305 million in direct payments to the veterans.
This is but a partial list. I do not wish to start throwing things down people's throats. However, I would recommend to members of the Liberal party or to any opposition member the admirable speech made in this house by the Minister of Public Works. It may be found at page 1155 of Hansard if hon. members care to look it up. That speech is predicated on achievements and promises fulfilled.
I like to look at my own riding in connection with this matter because we have heard criticism of deficit financing. Yet at the same time many things have been done. As to federal buildings, we have a federal building in the city of Penticton. It is a rather wonderful building. In my own home town of Oliver we have a federal building. Kelowna will have a new federal building. We have had post offices in Rutland and Keremeos. The R.C.M.P. barracks also. It is all part of a planned expansion program. There has been participation in health units and senior citizens dwellings. Incidentally, we have enlarged all the legislation with regard to those things.
In my own constituency breakwaters have been built on Okanagan lake, three brand new ones at Summerland, Peachland and Naramata, and there have been extensions and improvements to those in Penticton and Kelowna. In addition, one large airport has been put in and taken over by the Department of Transport at Kelowna. There is paving and reasonable lighting at the present time, and we hope to get more. At the city of Penticton there is an extension and more paving and an administration building. I name these things in order to indicate a few of the things we have done which were not on the shelf under the Liberal party, which were not there and available for this deficit financing. However, we went ahead in our

planning and we have benefited the constituency. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) spoke, as did the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) or rather the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey).


An hon. Member:: That is very different.


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes, and a very different person also as a representative. If you read the speeches or if you listened to them as I did, I could not help feeling that the constituents were very well looked after. This is a part of a planned program of getting down to the people. I do not like to mention it here, but once again I go to my own constituency where we had cold storage subsidies in the last year alone of $345,000. That is a great deal of money. It is a great deal of aid to the growers of my constituency. It is a great deal of help to contractors all down the line. I have, of course, a little note here which says "And we have not finished yet". We have not finished by a long shot.
That had reference to the Minister of Public Works. The Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke yesterday. I would recommend that the opposition read his speech and take the figures, go over them and mull them over. In them they will see a great deal to chew on. They are good figures. They show the position of Canada. One thing that I thought was rather remarkable is the fact that the imbalance of trade has now been wiped out. For the first time in many many years we have a credit balance of trade with other countries, and we have this credit balance despite an increase in imports and exports throughout Canada.
There is no question but that we are doing very well. The businessmen of Canada and incidentally the press, barring Barron's Weekly, seem to take a fairly good view of that which is being done by the present government; in fact they take an excellent view. I know you will find the odd little Liberal press clipping here and there to wave around and say, "Look here", but the general thought is favourable, and this is the thought throughout the constituency. That is the important thing, after all is said and done, for one who knows the difference between the brass and the grass. If you know your grass you know that your own businessman is a fairly happy person.
I would also recommend the speeches made by the Minister of Labour. There is a great deal in them. I would particularly point out what was done with regard to the winter works program. Last year this government paid out as their portion of the labour costs in all projects the sum of $32 million. That is a great deal of money. That means that the
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth projects which were put into effect were rather large, when you consider them in total sums of money. Incidentally, I would point out that this is not a payment to the provinces, it is a direct payment to the municipalities on winter works. It is a direct payment in addition to all the other substantially increased payments which we have been making to the provinces and the municipalities in other forms.
The Minister of Labour mentioned vocational training. I think we owe him and the government a debt of gratitude also for putting that program into effect. In the city of Kelowna I am happy to say that the provincial government has seen fit to put up a vocational training school, and it is not going to be a small one. I think it is only fair to point out that this government is paying three quarters of the cost of that whole set-up. I have reference to the building or the fixed plant. It is only fair also to point out that certain other costs are shared with the provincial government. I refer to the cost of vocational training education. Furthermore, the cost of training teachers is shared as well. People do not seem to realize it, but the federal government has extended the act in order to give benefits to the provinces.
Last night we heard criticism from the hon. member for Welland with regard to the dollar discount. Strangely enough, there is criticism of the dollar discount on the part of Liberal candidates in the province of British Columbia. Some of them are even writing to the press about the matter. To my mind they are committing political suicide, because the province of British Columbia, one of the great exporting provinces of the dominion, has gained immeasurably in export trade since we devalued the dollar. I have in mind my own industry, lumbering, which is the biggest industry in the province of British Columbia, and also the fruit industry, particularly apples. I can also say with authority that a mining boom has started in the province of British Columbia since the devaluation of the dollar, the like of which we have never seen before. These are long term plans.
The criticism is that we are wrecking the economy of Canada by the devaluation of the dollar. I say that is utter tommyrot, and persons who utter such statements have not taken the trouble to study the matter thoroughly. Canada is clamouring for exports, and we are now in a much better trading position. In addition, all the little articles that are imported into Canada now enter with what might be called an additional invisible tariff barrier against them.
The difference in the value of the dollar has made a tremendous impact as far as we are concerned. Apples are exported from my
1300	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth constituency to the United States, and on such exports we get 7 per cent or 8 per cent more. Practically every apple exported from Canada comes from my constituency or the constituency of Okanagan-Revelstoke. We are getting extra money for our apples. In addition, our competitors in the United States are faced with an invisible barrier of 7 per cent so far as the export of their product is concerned, making a total difference of from 15 to 20 per cent.
We have heard a lot about the deficit and deficit financing from various members, but to my mind the criticisms are ridiculous. In the briefs which labour has presented to the government throughout the years, labour has said that more deficit financing and more government spending are needed. We are doing that. The people of this country have asked for deficit spending. We need more public buildings, and we are providing them. But I think the important thing to know here is that the total accrued deficit of the government is more than balanced by the total of the increased payments to the provinces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh-


David Vaughan Pugh: The Leader of the Opposition says "oh". If he will finish his sentence I will try to answer him. He does not. The figures are easily garnered from available statistics. The total accrued deficit since we came into office amounts to $1.4 billion, while increased payments amount to $1.7 billion. That is something that members of the opposition should mull over, because we have many other increased payments. If we have a deficit, I think we have been doing very well to more than balance it by one item, increased payments to the provinces. But when you also take increased payments to veterans over the last for years, what do you get? You get a rather large total. Then there are all the public buildings that have been erected. Add up the cost of all these over the last four years and what have you got? Then there are the social justice payments which the opposition have been sort of pooh-poohing, but none the less at present they are bidding like fury to outbid us. There are many items that would come under that category, but I do not want to prolong matters by going into all of them. If you add up all these items and balance the total against the deficit, big as it may seem, we have a very healthy balance, one of which I am rather proud.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes, go ahead.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could my hon. friend give us the basis for the statement he


made a moment ago about the balancing off between the deficit position of the nation and the payments to provinces made by the federal government?


David Vaughan Pugh: I suggest to the hon. member that he frame a question and put it to the Minister of Finance tomorrow on orders of the day. The minister will have a ready answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fact is that you made a statement which you cannot back up.


David Vaughan Pugh: I have made this statement because it certainly points up something of which I am rather proud and of which the government is rather proud. It is something that can be supported by facts. Provincial payments are a rather sore subject so far as the former government are concerned. They say that they did this and they did that but, with particular reference to the province of British Columbia, when you total all the payments in each bracket right down the line they bulk large. There is no question but that from the time we came into office the payments have been bigger and better. If the hon. member wants to ask the Minister of Finance a question tomorrow I am sure he will give the hon. member the exact figures, $1.4 billion compared with $1.7 billion.
I must close, Mr. Speaker, but before doing so I should like to refer to the hon. member for Niagara Falls. In introducing the amendment the hon. lady stated-I cannot quote her exactly without looking up her words-that we want to tell Canadians now that they have never had it so good, and that we apparently do not propose to do anything except publicize our meagre accomplishments. I hate to take exception to what a lady says at any time, but she is in politics and I cannot help thinking that if she would do a little more homework she would probably get a better answer. That must have been the real reason behind this rather pusillanimous and ineffective amendment. It is very general in its terms and is merely a rehash of Liberal bemusement and indicates, if I may say so, their inefficiency in opposition.
The hon. lady is due for a shock, and so are the rest of the Liberals. Why do I say "shock"? I say so first of all because Canada is on the march. This is something that is not realized at all by the Liberal party. The policies which we have introduced in the last four years have been good for Canada and Canadians, for all types, sorts and sizes of Canadians. We want participation in the economy. Our legislation is designed to that end, and our policies are now being vindicated. Why also will the Liberals get a

shock? Because we are not content, as the hon. lady would have the house believe, to capitalize on past achievements. We will continue to introduce legislation for the betterment of Canada and all Canadians. The pattern is set, and this government will continue to serve.


Mr. John R. Malheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, as found in the Athens Reporter, the Minister of Trade and Commerce made this statement in Brockville on February 21:
Final proof of the effectiveness of the federal government's action during these troubled years is that Canada's economy is moving vigorously ahead.
On February 22, sir, the Minister of Public Works delivered a lengthy address. On page 1157 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
Now we are riding on one of the most prosperous waves-
On page 1159 he is reported as saying:
Now that we are on the high road to prosperity-
On page 1160 he is reported as saying:
We have made this magnificent contribution to Canada-
This is said, sir, with 609,000 people receiving unemployment benefits as of December 29, 1961. The Prime Minister has made statements in similar terms. According to Mr. Charles Lynch the Prime Minister, on December 20, said:
It has been a wonderful year for me. I look back over it with a great deal of pleasure.
Reducing this problem to the local level may I tell this house soberly that for the last three years, 1959, 1960 and 1961, there have been substantially over 3,000 people unemployed in the town of Cornwall, which has a population of just over 42,000. The ratio of registrants to population in the town of Prescott, which is immediately east to the city where I live, is 15.5. There are now between 900 and 1,000 people in Brockville who are unemployed. I refer to Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly, to which reference was made by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. This is the edition of February 19, 1962 and the front page story is headed "Playing With Fire; Canadian Economic Policy Sounds an Alarm for U.S.". May I read just two extracts from it:
-a massive capital flight from the dominion already is under way.
Further along I read:
For more than four years, then, Canada's Conservatives, adopting one misguided economic and fiscal policy after another, have been playing with fire.
May I read into the record the comparative table of indices showing the gross national
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth product per person in constant dollars using 1950 as 100 per cent.
Countries	1950	1956	I960 (est.)Japan 	147	190Germany 	. 100	152	185Italy 	135	175France 	125	142Netherlands 	. 100	127	140Sweden 	. 100	115	128United Kingdom ...	. 100	115	124Canada 	. 100	116	111
In constant 1954 dollars the per capita gross national product figures in the United States were, 1950, $2,096; 1956, $2,393; 1960, $2,442. Preliminary United States index figures would be respectively 100, 114 and 117. This table was prepared by Mr. H. G. DeYoung, chairman of Canada's productivity council. May I refer to a return which was tabled yesterday, I believe. The question of the government was:
What is the percentage of foreign investment control in the years 1956 and 1961 in (a) the resource industries (b) the manufacturing industries?
The answer to (a) was only available up to 1959, and it shows that in mining and smelting the percentage of foreign investment control in 1956 was 58 per cent and in 1959, three years later, it was 61 per cent. In the manufacturing industries, in 1956 foreign investment control was 52 per cent, and in 1959 it was 57 per cent.
I refer this house to another answer that was given very recently, and it is related to the per capita production output for the years 1950 to 1960. Let me refer to just two figures. The figure for 1956 in constant 1957 dollars was $1,959 per capita and for 1960, the last available figure, it was $1,898. In other words, 1961 was less than 1956 by $61. Between 1955 and 1956 we had an increase in gross national product per person of 5.9 per cent and between 1956 and 1960 a drop of over 3 per cent. Using the average of seasonally adjusted to annual rates, gross national product figures in constant 1957 dollars for the first two quarters of 1957 and for the first two quarters of 1961, the last figures available to us, the per capita gross national product in real terms, that is in constant dollars, is as follows: 1957, $1,945; 1961, $1,863, a relative loss in gross national product of $82 per man, woman and child, and a loss of $328 per theoretical family of four. This is the basis for our contention that these past four years have been the wasted years for Canada, and that is how they will go down in history.
By way of contrast, and simply to indicate how successful the common market has become since it was brought into being by the six nations in 1958, I should like to point out that during the brief four years all the member countries have achieved a rate of sustained
1302	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth economic growth never before experienced in the history of Europe. Workers and employers, industry and labour, consumers and producers are sharing in an economic recovery and in a prosperity more rapid and more sustained than anywhere else in the world.
Listen to these figures. The gross national product of the European community rose 7 per cent in 1960 over 1959 in terms of constant prices, and climbed at a 5 per cent rate during 1961. Industrial production went up 12 per cent in 1960 and has expanded 25 per cent in three years. Is it any wonder, sir, that in light of these figures, which I have taken from Reader's Digest for February, 1962, our own Canadian performance has demonstrated a frightening downward deflection of growth trends? Perhaps we are wrong in saying that the affairs of Canada, from a business point of view, are not sound. However, we are in good company because there are many able people who agree with us. I think it is important that the government start listening to some of these people who are among their earnest supporters.
May I refer to the Financial Post of November 4, 1961, which contains an article entitled "We Need a National Goal for Expansion of Economy." The government may not like this article because it contains statements made by Mitchell W. Sharp, who is vice president of Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company. Of course during recent months he has indicated a partisanship that is inimical to the government. Mr. Sharp has said:
There are three fundamental issues of economic policy facing Canada today.
How to deal with persistent unemployment.
There were 719,000 people unemployed in 1961, and that was far too many. The second fundamental is, how to adjust our trading policies to the rapidly changing world around us. In this respect, I feel that this government has done nothing except put its head in the sand. The third fundamental is foreign ownership. I read into the record a few minutes ago a table which indicated how unsuccessful the government have been in this direction, no matter what their purpose may have been. When you take out the figures for the trade with communist China, the contracts for which incidentally we are not permitted to examine; when you take out the figures for trade with Poland under extraordinary credit terms; when you take out the figures for trade with Castro's Cuba, then you find our 1961 exports are in a critical situation.
Mr. Sharp says what is needed are measures to stimulate expansion along efficient and dynamic lines which will permit future growth and adaptability in a highly competitive and changing world. He says:


Our secondary manufacturing industries must be encouraged to keep abreast of the most advanced technology, to engage in a rapid rate of innovation and development, to seek areas of advantageous specialization and to achieve adequate scales of output so that they can compete effectively both at home and abroad.
I shall not go on to deal further with the article, but it is not only men like Mitchell Sharp who are saying this. There is also E. P. Taylor, and I refer to an article in the Toronto Star Weekly of November 4, 1961 which is headed "Economic Leadership Needed." In it the Toronto industrialist, E. P. Taylor, is quoted as saying:
"Canada's international rating has slipped rather badly in recent years. .With other competitive countries increasing their national production at rates of 7 and 8 per cent annually, it's plain that Canada should step up its own rate of growth. We need national economic policies designed to bring this about.
The article goes on to indicate:
In this, as in every other modern country, the ultimate responsibility for the state of the national economy rests with the national government.
On this we agree. Let us look at the Vancouver Province for November 15, 1961. There is an article headed "Canada still looks for real economic leadership", and it says:
Mr. James Coyne, the former Bank of Canada governor, is no longer delivering broadsides from Ottawa or public platforms, urging Canadians to tighten their belts and live within their means.
But others have caught his urgency.
The article goes on to mention industrialist E. P. Taylor, Neil L. McKinnon, and W. J. Kirkpatrick. It also states that Dean E. D. MacPhee, of the University of British Columbia, who is respected by thinking people, listed Canada's ailments as follows:
The low level of productivity in industry.
The balance of payments deficit.
The high proportion of foreign investment.
The rising level of prices.
The changing order of international trade.
The Financial Post of November 18, 1961, has an article entitled "The basic health not good enough" which contains the following
passage:
The hard evidence that Canada is in basic, long term trouble, whatever the current little improvements, is plainly visible right now ... it is clear that if Canada aspires to a real growth rate of slightly more than 4 per cent a year ... no substitute will do for a bold, intelligent and responsible attempt to plan our prosperity.
That is from the Financial Post, and there are friends of this government who could be heard by the government had it the ears to hear. The Toronto Telegram of November 29, 1961 has an article by David Grenier, its financial editor, which is headed "High cost of stagnation". He points to:
-resources concentrated in industries that were not growth industries.

The Montreal Gazette of December 12, 1961 speaks of "Economic growth hindered" and the opening paragraph reads:
Uncertainty about Canadian policy towards the European common market was described last night as one of the strongest inhibitions on economic growth
The Victoria daily Times of December 28,
1961	had an article headed "Still Stagnation", and the Financial Post of January 27, 1962 had a page headed "Where do we go from here". It shows various indices of growth in the period from 1947 to 1962 (estimated) and they read:
G.N.P.: Sluggish since '56-
Business outlays: decline from a peak Corporate profits: no real rise Unemployment: double earlier rate.
The Toronto Globe and Mail, which is friendly to the government, on February 1,
1962	spoke of "Steady decline in productivity noted in Canada". That article refers to the excellent address given by J. D. Campbell, president of Canadian Westinghouse Company Limited the previous day, and reports him as follows:
The decline since 1956-compared with an annual gain of almost 3 per cent between 1949 and 1956- is a result of the shift of labour into the service industries, unemployment and idle capacity in industry-
Just because we do not share its views it is quite unworthy of us to ascribe all the blame for what has happened to the present government, but we on this side believe that serious and vital changes have taken place in the world and, for some reason beyond our ken and understanding, this government does not seem to be concerned about these changes. They appear to move against the tide. Is it not urgently important that we look at the situation where immigration has turned into emigration, and Canada's most costly exports have become the skills and brains of its people?
With our best customer, the United States, the government perpetuates an insidious campaign of anti-Americanism. With our second best customer, the United Kingdom, the government raises tariffs on cars and textiles. It refuses to consider offers of freer trade, and it threatens to undermine the commonwealth if Britain joins the common market, despite Britain's trade plight. With our fourth best customer, Japan, the government imposes excise taxes on radio sets, tubes and cigarette lighters, and increases the tariff on nails. It thus makes it almost impossible for Japan to earn Canadian dollars to buy Canadian products. As Arthur J. R. Smith says, "Protection is the gateway to a lonely and trivial splendour," and so our policy is one of jingoistic bellicose nationalism.
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth
May I ask the house to go back in imagination to a period when difficulties were much greater than they are now, in 1962. I am going to ask the house to step back in imagination to the wartime cabinet of Great Britain in June, 1940. At that time the cabinet approved the final draft proclamation of an Anglo-French union and authorized its dispatch to M. Reynaud by the hand of General de Gaulle. This was on June 16, 1940, and the contents of the draft were telephoned to M. Reynaud. I wish to read extracts from that draft, and may I add that it was primarily the work of Winston Churchill, that gallant leader of Britain. It states:
At this most fateful moment in the history of the modern world, the governments of the United Kingdom and the French republic make this declaration of indissoluble union-
The two governments declare that France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British union.
The constitution of the union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies.
Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain; every British subject will become a citizen of France.
We might well say "ridiculous", yet in 1941 a man for whom I have the greatest admiration, Charles Morgan, a former professor at Oxford, gave two addresses, one in New York and one in London. In each he read the following:
It must be clear that the simplest law of selfpreservation requires that we have a friend and not an enemy in Paris.
But this strategical point is not the one I wish to make now. I put forward a different and more embracing claim-not that the strength and inde-pendance of France are necessary to our political survival but that the life and spirit of France constitute an idea the death of which would be the death of civilization. I have heard it said that France is decadent, that she is corrupt, that to the world of the future no good can come from her-
This was written on February 25, 1941.
-that the British empire and America can afford to do without her. I hold, on the contrary, that, in spite of her faults and failures, there is in her a unique element without which the energies and virtues of the Anglo Saxon peoples cannot yield their full fruit.
Of all the countries in the world, Canada is surely the one to support such a contention, to believe it and live by it. Winston Churchill, in his famous speech at Zurich in September, 1946 used these words:
Among the victors there is a babel of jarring voices, among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair. Yet all the while there is a remedy which would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene. It is to recreate the European family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of united states of Europe.
When I was at the United Nations observing what was happening down there I noticed

Alleged Lack of Economic Growth an article in the New York Times of December 13, 1961 headed "Marriage of convenience: John Bull and B. Bardot".
And now suddenly this thing is happening. But what has been happening in all these years in Canada? About our attitude to these enormous changes of such far reaching importance culturally, economically, socially, affecting the survival of free people? This is one reason I so earnestly subscribe to the policies of the party to which I belong. I feel we must recognize that enormous changes are taking place in the world and that this unity of England and France-and of all Europe, indeed-is something that is ennobling to all mankind and in which we must participate in a vigorous way.
Can we not remember that when NATO was created the prime architect, according to the words of the chancellor of the University of London, was Mr. St. Laurent, who was then prime minister of Canada. It was our Mr. St. Laurent of Canada who had a major part in the formation of NATO, and it was certainly not thought in those days that NATO was something confined and related only to war. It was something very much larger than that.
Where do we stand on this matter? Our leader has expressed himself in rather clear terms, and I would ask hon. gentleman to listen for a moment. When the Atlantic trading community was first proposed by Lester B. Pearson in the House of Commons on March 21, 1960 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said:
There is no reason on earth why Canada should not at least associate itself in this initiative in an aggressive and formal way. It seems to me there is a real urgency in this matter. This is the time to do it if it is going to be done at all. The European countries are finalizing their respective trade arrangements and next year it might be too late for any alternative proposal to be made to them.
He spoke in almost the same terms to the Empire and Canadian clubs in Toronto on April 24, 1961, when he said:
This process of Atlantic economic integration must take place for political as well as commercial reasons. It is necessary for the prosperity and growth of the Atlantic democracies. But it may soon be necessary for their survival.
Then in the House of Commons on April 25, 1961, before I had the honour of being here, he said:
We should encourage European, economic as well as political integration on a basis of expanded, not restricted, trade, and then we should do everything we can to convert that European economic community into a political trade area with which, stage by stage, other free countries could be associated.

There are certain parts of Canada where they have caught the urgency of this. Certainly this is so in Winnipeg. A series of articles have been published in this connection. Max Freedman has written on this subject at different times, as has Maurice Western, who has written about "The Turtle at Ottawa." The Winnipeg Free Press has written repeatedly on the subject "Is Canada turning her back on destiny?", particularly in view of the great leadership that is now being shown by the present idealistic, energetic and courageous President of the United States.
Mr. Kennedy's state of the union message was by any measure a bold and masterly answer to what Mr. Fleming seemed to be seeking, a superb act of leadership in the face of formidable opposition in his own country and abroad, and it must have been with this thought in mind that five senior members of the American cabinet journeyed to Ottawa last week end in the confident expectation that they would find their counterparts in the Canadian cabinet enthusiastic about the president's program.
But according to the communique issued at the close of their talks the president's emissaries found nothing of the kind. "Canadian ministers," the communique said, "emphasized that the commonwealth trade links, including the exchange of preferences and the historic right of free entry into the United Kingdom market, were an essential cohesive element in the commonwealth association". Where the Americans came prepared to discuss the realities of the present the Canadians were able to speak in the platitudes of the past, delivering the same tiresome lectures with which they have been haranguing the British since the negotiations with the common market opened.
I submit that there is perhaps nothing more important and more exciting in political economy today than for us to think in terms of the sweeping changes that have taken place in the world since world war II. We know there have been various attempts in history, in the nineteenth century and indeed in the eighteenth century, toward a world community. We saw this with the British when they repealed the corn laws, and the subsequent sweeping movement towards new growth and development. It is noteworthy that there were just two countries which resisted this kind of economic development that was lifting mankind all over the world. There was Canada with her national policy of 1879, and in that same year Germany which moved in the direction of an imperialism which ultimately led to world war I.
We remember the chaos of the world community that produced world war I and later demonstrated itself in dangerous and insidious ways in the inflation of 1921 and 1922 and eventually the flight from gold. We saw France and Austria, and the United States pursue nationalistic monetary policies that were designed to do nothing but destroy the economic stability of the world and indeed most individual economies of the world.

But somehow or other we have got over that; at least we think we have. We think the world has been granted a second chance. In 1947 there was GATT and in 1950, through the energy of the French there was the Schumann plan. What a brave venture this was by the French with their old, traditional enemy Germany. We saw in O.E.E.C. a development in this direction. Finally these people determined that they could go a step further and there was the treaty of Rome which was finally signed in March, 1957 after much discussion and negotiation. In 1959 we saw the outer seven, led by Britain into the development of the E.F.T.A.
This is not only something that is happening in Europe. This is a movement, ecumenical in its concept, that is happening in other parts of the world. In our own hemisphere we found that in 1958 five central American countries under the leadership of Costa Rica were developing a customs union, and in 1960 there were seven other Latin American countries led by Argentina. This has all formed a great stepping stone to a future Latin-Amer-ican commonwealth which is certainly going to be in the nature of a great common market.
On November 2, 1961 our leader made this statement with respect to Atlantic trade. This was prompted by the Herter-Clayton report from Washington. The Leader of the Opposition said:
The Herter-Clayton report from Washington is of the greatest significance to Canada and all free countries. It would put the United States government right behind those principles of international trade that the Liberal party has advocated for a long time; principles that the Liberal opposition since 1957, have consistently urged on a Tory government in Ottawa, which has just as consistently ignored or rejected them.
Rather than collaborate with Great Britain in furthering these principles, in extending the European common market into an even wider common market, the present government has publicly upbraided and criticized the British government for moving in this direction. It has done this, even though it scorned a British offer of free trade with Canada made more than three years ago.
It is high time that our government awakened to the implications of what is going on across the Atlantic-and now across the border. It is high time that Canada's interests were promoted by positive and constructive policies instead of being damaged by the negative and sterile policy of the government.
Then we have the Toronto Globe and Mail of January 2, 1962 asking this question: "Can Canada renew time that ran out during 1961?" Fraser Robertson says:
For Canada 1961 may be remembered as the year when time ran out.
I hope this is not so. It seems to me that when we look fairly at the theories of political economy in this country, basically there is a
26207-1-83i
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth very large measure of agreement among all our political parties. Actually we tend to think pretty much in the same way. There have been statements made which have been guarded and timid at times, but nevertheless statements which make us think that the government does perhaps understand something of the far reaching changes that are taking place right now and have changed the face of the world within the last five years. Is this government really a Conservative government in the terms described by William J. Newman, who is a distinguished professor of government at Boston? I hope it is not. If not, this is the time to prove that, because this is a critical and urgent and climactic moment in history. Professor Newman says:
The Conservative society is the futilitarian society. It is futilitarian because it cannot expand and develop, will not expand and develop, the opportunities for change and freedom. Because it does not and will not do so it is a society which is useless to man because it has nothing to suggest how man can meet new problems and how he can create better ways of living.
Surely this government is in a position to assess the situation, to stop tampering, tinkering and manipulating and get down to basic problems, giving the direction that is urgently needed by industry, private enterprise, labour, agriculture and all segments of our economy. In other words, I put this question to the government. Have we not reached the point where we could enunciate bold, far reaching policy and give Canada a chance?


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting for me to have the opportunity of following in this debate the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), whom I knew at university. The hon. gentleman has a notable war record. I rather regret that he has fallen into his present company, because in former days when I knew him he was most optimistic, but I see that he has now adopted the gloom of the present company he keeps. It may be said that he and I recognize the same problems but adopt somewhat different approaches to them.
This debate has developed into a battle of statistics. It reminds me of the story of the gentleman who was six feet tall. He wanted to cross a river, and so measured its depth and ascertained that its average depth was two feet. And in crossing, he drowned.
The amendment presented by the hon. member for Niagara Falls may be characterized as a blunderbuss amendment. However, it did not go off with a big bang. The powder was not very explosive, and the pellets fell with a dull thud. The hon. lady is very pessimistic concerning Canada's future. I should remind her that in her own constituency in the last two or three years there have been developments that should cheer her up. I have a

Alleged Lack of Economic Growth statement from the office of the industrial commissioner of the chamber of commerce of the greater Niagara district which indicates that between 12 and 15 new industries have been located in the area employing more than 200 people. Several highly promising negotiations are under way at present with firms showing an interest in establishing in the Niagara peninsula. Eight local firms in the last two years have spent more then $8 million in plant extensions, and have provided more than 200 new jobs. One large industry is starting immediately on a $30 million plant extension. During 1961 the Ford Company of Canada built a new plant in the Niagara Falls area. Two hundred and fifty people are employed in a development along the Welland ship canal. I thought the hon. lady would like to know about these things in the event she is really as depressed as her speech suggested.
I am disappointed that this debate has developed into a battle of statistics rather than of ideas. We all recognize the problems before us today, but in fairness we must recognize that they have not developed since the Conservative government came into power. They developed during the 22 years in which the Liberals were in power, and I think should be approached from that point of view.
The hon. member for Niagara Falls spoke at length about planning. I wonder if that represents a change of policy on the part of the Liberals, because for 22 years they followed a laissez faire policy and somewhat ridiculed those who spoke of a need for planning. The leader of the New Democratic party yesterday gave his definition of the word "planning". When both hon. members had concluded their remarks I was not sure whether the word "planning" meant the same thing to them, nor was I sure whether the type of planning of which they spoke would result in a controlled economy or merely represented a nebulous hope that certain things will happen.
I think it may be interesting to examine the views of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce as set out in their 1958 report, giving their assessment of 1957. Under the heading "Canada's Fiscal and Monetary Policy" it is stated:
The year 1957, while a good year by most measurements of economic activity, and a record year for some industries, nevertheless registered a pause in the sharp upward thrust of the Canadian economy which commenced late in 1954. Over-all economic activity measured in dollars this year will probably be slightly above 1956, but in physical production will be no larger and possibly a little smaller. Demands on the economy remained strong in the early months of 1957, but towards the latter part of the year were less insistent, with inflationary pressures reduced, and many areas of business activity recorded declines from the corresponding months of 1956. Developments abroad were unsettling during the year. In the trade area

Britain and France experienced serious economic difficulties, and many raw material producing countries were adversely affected by the continued decline in commodity prices. In recent months confidence was disturbed by Soviet technological achievements, and by sharp declines in equity markets. Such developments, along with some weakness in the United States economy have created uncertainties which must be carefully assessed in appraising the outlook for Canadian business in 1958.
These people understand the Canadian business situation. They assessed it and were honest enough to recognize that the conditions referred to resulted not from the change of government but from what had happened in past years and the international situation. Referring to 1957 they state:
The past year has witnessed more cross currents in the Canadian economy than in any recent period. The inflationary pressures generated by the sharp advance of 1955-56 abated considerably as the year progressed, and by early fall money rates were receding from the high levels of the summer, reflecting less pressing demands for capital funds. On the one hand, shrinkage in external markets adversely affected exports of many basic products. Weakness was also noted in residential construction and in markets for some consumer durable goods.
Those in the Toronto area remember that at the beginning of 1957 there was considerable unemployment in the area, especially in the construction industry, because of the tight money policy of the former government. The then government did not make available to the industry the facilities at its disposal. Many people in my riding were out of work.
Some economists have just recently wakened to the fact that some of the difficulties of that period began to manifest themselves in 1958, but if they study history they will realize that the tight money policy of the former government in 1957 not only affected the construction industry but choked off the growth of many small businesses at that time. I recall many small businessmen who were planning developments in my area but could not proceed because of the tight money situation.
I wish to place on record a few passages from the Canadian chamber of commerce submission to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue of February, 1962, which fairly assesses the situation in these words:
Exports have been buoyant enough to reduce the trade gap substantially, capital expenditures have held up fairly well, consumer spending in recent months has shown signs of revival and unemployment is gradually being reduced. Furthermore there are encouraging indications for continuation of the business recovery in the United States, always a good omen for Canada.
And later:
It is now evident in retrospect that Canada enjoyed exceptionally good fortune in the decade following world war II, and as a result of a

unique combination of circumstances forged ahead more rapidly than most other countries. This surge left its inevitable maladjustments, some of which may take as long to correct as they did to arise. The task of making necessary adjustments has been aggravated by the delayed emergence of many countries-particularly in western Europe-as keen competitors both in the markets of the world and in the Canadian market. There is no miracle by which the problems we face can be overcome in a day, but with the energetic and persistent pursuit of appropriate policies they can be overcome in the foreseeable future.
These policies must bring to bear all the imagination of business and government on a broad front, and must be directed toward increasing both consumption and capital investment at home as well as widening the market for Canadian products abroad. A judicious combination of fiscal and monetary policies, supplemented with other business and governmental measures, will continue to help materially in reaching these goals.
Then mark this statement, Mr. Speaker.
Fortunately, many of the programs that could be suggested have already been initiated.
As was stated, the executive council of the chamber of commerce accepts the extension of deficit financing into another year but with some reservations. Then further under "Tax Policy" we find the following:
The executive council wishes to commend the government for the steps it has already taken in the last two budgets to stimulate investment by an acceleration of capital cost allowances and to encourage research expenditures by the removal of past restrictions. These have been moves in the right direction. It is the view of the council, however, that more could be accomplished by giving greater incentives under existing programs, thus encouraging investment in more efficient plant and equipment that will operate at lower cost, and by the extension of measures to other areas, such as the export field.
Then again under "Monetary Policy" in the same report we find the following:
In view of developments of the last year which appear to have resolved some of the questions about which the executive council previously expressed concern and also having in mind that the royal commission on banking and finance will shortly be commencing its public hearings, the executive council has no extensive statement to make on monetary policy at this time. It would reiterate its firm belief in the necessity for close co-ordination between monetary, fiscal and other policies and in the desirability of maintaining flexibility in the monetary area in particular.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a slam at the government.


Mr. Morton:: If the hon. member will wait I think he will find that they agree with what the government has done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say that is a slam at the government.


Murray Douglas Morton: No. When I have finished what I am reading the hon. member may understand that it is a compliment to the government on what has been done. I continue:
The simultaneous requirements of a policy of easier money, of dealing with problems relating
Alleged. Lack of Economic Growth to a discount on the Canadian dollar and of assisting with financing the government's cash deficit will call for the exercise of greatest skill and imagination on the part of our monetary authorities in the months ahead.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: We all agree with that statement, of course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is also a slam at the government.


Murray Douglas Morton: The report continues:
The executive council expresses the hope that the developments of the last year, both in government and in the central bank, have brought about the conditions under which monetary policy will be able to fill the very important and exacting role which it is now expected to play.
In other words they agree with what happened last year, and the change. The report goes on to say:
The executive council commends the government for its energetic efforts to promote export sales through the expansion of its trade services and to increase productivity through establishment of the national productivity council. In the realm of trade negotiations-
And so on. It goes on commending the government for its activities in connection with trade. It states:
Our trade with the United States is vital to our economy and every opportunity of extending it should be explored. Finally, both the United Kingdom and the common market countries have indicated their willingness to participate in a program of tariff reduction on broad product groups. All these and other possibilities should be considered on their merits without slavish adherence to existing arrangements and in the light of the cold fact that without an aggressive and flexible approach Canada may find that it has suffered serious injury to its manufacturing industry and serious loss of its trade opportunities in the main markets of the world . .. The continuance of the discount on the Canadian dollar will also help to this end. The members of the government have given generous support to the need for exports by drawing attention to the subject frequently in their public utterances. It is hoped that this will continue and that the program will be encouraged by the adoption of further well conceived measures.
While recognizing that there is still a great deal to be done, that is the viewpoint of those in industry who have studied the needs of Canadian industry. Far from being pessimistic and far from being extremely critical, as the opposition has been, they have commended the government on the efforts that have been made.


An hon. Member:: They are Canadian.


Murray Douglas Morton: That is right. We need to take into consideration in this matter not United States quotations which have been so glibly quoted in this house, but rather quotations from those in our own country. There is another quotation which it might be well to put on the record. It is from the commercial

Alleged Lack of Economic Growth letter of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce under the heading of "The Outlook for Exports":
During the year just past Canadian exports rose to new high levels. A feature of this increase was a marked improvement in trade with countries other than the United States and the United Kingdom. A high level of shipments was maintained to countries in western Europe, Asia and South America but exports to the United States lacked buoyancy until the latter half of the year when improvement in the third quarter pushed total exports to a record for that period-12.7 per cent higher than that of the same period in 1960.
As we know, for the first time since 1952 we have had a favourable trade balance. This was not something that happened just by accident. We all remember the early days, when the government proposed certain trade changes in order to be less dependent on the United States. The present opposition ridiculed that idea, and they have tried to becloud the trade issues today by casting an unfair reflection on the Canadian government and its attitude toward the common market. To hear them talk you would think Canada was the only country that was raising any question as to the implications of the common market.
Those of us who attended the commonwealth conference in London last year know that from every part of the commonwealth members rose and pointed1 out the adverse effects that entrance by Britain into the common market would have on their countries unless certain special preferences were given. Other countries, such as New Zealand and Australia, whose representatives have spoken just as strongly as have our ministers, have pointed out how their economy is much more directly dependent on their trade with Britain than ours, and they have said so in no uncertain terms. Nigeria and Ghana, whose major products are sold to Britain at the present time, would also be greatly affected by the entrance of Britain into the common market. India, which has based its new five year plan on the present trade arrangement with Britain, would be greatly affected by Britain's entry into the common market. They are very much concerned about what would happen to them. Even in England there are those who express concern about England's entry into the common market. Hon. E. Shin-well, a former minister in the Labour government, said this:
In 1959, we imported more than three times the amount from the commonwealth than we did from the Six. In 1960, we imported rather more than this amount. In 1959, we exported about four times more to the commonwealth than we sent to the countries of the Six. In 1960, we did rather better than in 1959-
At the same conference which we attended he expressed grave doubts as to England entering into the common market. One of the Conservative members also stated:

Of all those who have told me that we can go in and shape the community to suit our national purposes, none has ever said to me that we can go in on any other terms than on the acceptance of what is in article 3 about "a common customs tariff" and ''a common commercial policy toward third countries". It would split the Tory party were we to bind, beneath the votes or veto of a foreign or supranational agency, our liberty to arrange our trade with Australia, India, or any commonwealth realm or republic.
Michael Foot, Labour, said:
What we should do is to have the courage to recognize that we have still great associations with other countries that we can develop. We have not attempted to do it on anything like the scale that we should have done. Let us agree that this house and the British commonwealth should make the real decision.
Then Sir Norman Kipping, director general of the federation of British industries, said:
You will have seen, in the aide memoire to members about British industry and Europe approved ... by the federation of British industries, grand council, a significant sentence: "We will not support a solution which in effect meant that the commonwealth was to pay a substantial part of the price for British association with the common market". This is no expression of sentiment; it is an economic judgment.
As the hon. member for Leeds said, Mr. Speaker, it is true that these are challenging days. We must recognize changing trade patterns, but we must also recognize the implications of these and figure out as much as we can where we are going to fit into them. For instance, if Britain does enter the common market without being able to maintain the preferences in our favour there will be serious effects. For example, I understand that our refrigerators going into the English market get a 17 per cent preference. If Britain enters the common market we will lose that preference, and in addition we will have a tariff against us going into the common market of 10 per cent, which makes a 27 per cent difference in the tariff. That is something we have to take into consideration. Economically, are we geared to compete with this type of competition?
Then there is the political aspect. As I said recently in another speech in the house, with the assembly, the council and so on set up under article 3 or 4 of the treaty you have to abandon a certain amount of your sovereignty, and if the organization becomes a political union, as is the hope of the founders, where does the commonwealth go from there? Are we ready for that? Have we given any serious thought to the implications? Some have suggested that in the event Canada, as a result of natural trade trends, would become more and more a part of the United States and perhaps another state of the United States. These

are things that I believe we should be thinking about when we are talking about our national growth and where are are going. Nothing about that situation has been brought up by the opposition except for a compilation of statistics. You can use statistics to prove almost anything, if you want, but they have skipped around the major problems and the things we are faced with today. They have made no suggestion as to what we are going to do about automation and other things that affect our trade. With great relish they have quoted figures on unemployment, but this battle of statistics on unemployment is not going to give food or clothing to those who are out of work.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Murray Douglas Morton: It is not going to give the person who is out of work the self-satisfaction and self respect he gets in obtaining a job.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: I hear the hon. member for Essex East say "Hear, hear"-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are waiting for action by the government.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: -but all he does is quote statistics. In 22 years the Liberal regime, of which he was a major part, did nothing to prepare for the times we are faced with today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The most prosperous period in the history of Canada.


Murray Douglas Morton: The hon. member says "the most prosperous period". I will not deny that, but it was during those times of prosperity that you were blind to the trends that are causing our difficulties today. You did not see the growing chronic unemployment. You were bailed out of difficulty by the first world war, the second world war and the Korean war.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Tory times are hard times.


Murray Douglas Morton: They are so blind today that they cannot see the new things that are being done by this party. They are still blind, and so are their economic advisers.


Augustin Brassard: And so were the people of Canada for 22 years?


Murray Douglas Morton: I agree that the people of Canada were blinded for 22 years by the hon. member's party. Perhaps at this time I should put on the record some of the things that the present government has done, just to remind these blind people across the way of what has been done.
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth


Mr. Mcllrailh:: They have doubled unemployment.


Murray Douglas Morton: We have not doubled unemployment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Murray Douglas Morton: We have inherited things that have caused unemployment. How can the people of this country be expected to go back to a party which has not yet learned the lessons it failed to learn in 22 years? First, the party to which I belong has greatly expanded the functions of the industrial development bank to provide small and medium sized firms with a larger source of working capital. Let the Liberals deny that. Second, we have made available loans to small business to provide working capital for those small but important industries which previously had no alternative source of funds for growth. During the tight money period started by the Liberals small businesses could not get money from the banks, while big businesses could.
Third, we have introduced accelerated depreciation to encourage the production of new products and the establishment of new industries in labour surplus areas. Fourth, we have set up a national productivity council to help industry to become more competitive and thereby increase sales and provide more jobs. Fifth, we have established a national design council to assist Canadian industries with their design problems by encouraging improved design to make possible more sales and more jobs. Sixth, in co-operation with the provinces the federal government is providing substantial assistance for the training and retraining of large numbers of the labour force. The object of this program is to prepare workers for the rapid technological changes which are taking place in Canada's industries. If Canada is to take its place as a modern industrial nation, its workers must have the skills to staff our modern factories.
There is something the Liberals neglected during the period they were in office. Today we lack certain skills in certain industries because they did not have the foresight to do anything about it except during the war. I will grant that during the war period they did help, but once the war was over that was as far as they would go. I know that in my own riding the government has authorized a new school, the Edith L. Groves junior vocational school, at an estimated cost of $1,211,000, and the federal government's share is about $908,250.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was the province that authorized the school.

Alleged Lack of Economic Growth


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: True, the province authorized the school, but at least the federal government offered the province assistance which was not given to them before.


Mr. Nesbili:: Seventy five per cent.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: Seventy five per cent of the cost.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Based upon an act introduced by a Liberal government.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: That is right. They put a lot of inactive acts on the statute books, and this party had to put some life into them.


George James McIlraith: You mean you had to create unemployment?


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: You created it and we are trying to get rid of it. Perhaps I am unfair, Mr. Speaker, in saying that. I realize that world conditions did have some effect. I would not like to give them credit for being able to even create unemployment.
We also introduced the industrial promotion branch which has been created to help new industries become established and to expand old industries. During the past year there have been 12 meetings held with various provinces across this country. Representatives of these industries have sat down with government representatives who try to ascertain how conditions could be improved for the industries. There were three of them in Ontario which were very enthusiastic and who wanted to have these meetings.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said we had done nothing. Of course we have done many things, only the opposition is too blind to see them. They are suffering from the same blindness that prevented them from seeing these problems accumulating while they were in power. I had hoped at this time to have some statistics to indicate the development of metropolitan Toronto. They do not appear to have come to my desk at this moment.
However, in closing-


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a shortage of ammunition in the battle of statistics.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: I just wanted to show that Toronto has been growing. We have been mastering the unemployment situation. However, there is still a great deal to be done. Before we take into consideration too much of what the opposition has said in the amendment before us, I should like to emphasize the fact that it was their arrogance and their tight money policy that led the people of Canada to vote against them. The present opposition had become fat and lazy when they were in power, and they had no economic policies. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people will think twice before they

go back to this party which brought the people to the verge of the difficulties they are facing today.
The Liberal party has not learned very much since that time. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they remind one a great deal of the immature little boy who has been tripped and, in his rage, he starts kicking the thing that has tripped him. This is illustrated by the incident we saw in the house the other day when one hon. member turned and kicked the person who had tripped him, namely the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). He started a personal vendetta against the man who had tripped him.


Murdo William Martin: You are very critical today.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: The hon. member says I am critical. I know I am usually quite calm, but after having heard the barrage of nonsense that came from the other side, I finally became aroused.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was just quoting the Minister of Finance, you understand.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: No, he was just misquoting the Minister of Finance. I place more reliance on what the Minister of Finance has said than on what the hon. member for Essex East has said.
A great deal was said last night about the cost of living index during the time the Conservatives have been in power. I think perhaps, in fairness, it ought to be shown that there was a little increase during the time the Liberals were in power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More statistics.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: That is correct; we have to fight fire with fire sometimes. If we left on the record only the statistics which hon. members opposite have quoted, perhaps the people of Canada might be misled, although I count a lot on the intelligence of the Canadian people. Between 1946 and 1948, the consumer price index advanced more than 25 per cent. This is one period during which the Liberals were in power. Then, with the outbreak of the Korean war in June 1950 came a resurgence of pressure on prices and in the course of the next 18 months further major upward movements took place. The consumer price index rose from 102.7 in July 1950 to 118.1 by December 1951, an increase of 15 per cent. Then between 1956 and 1957 there was an increase of 6.8 per cent. I put these figures on the record just to balance things up.
It is true that the cost of living has risen since we first came into power. The first year it rose more rapidly than it has latterly. However, these things happen in spite of

what may be done. I do not think they are to the credit or to the blame of any political party. I think the sooner that we, as members of parliament, realize this is more than a battle of statistics, then the sooner we will get at the fundamentals of the problems that are facing this country and the better it will be for the recovery and continued prosperity of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Murray Douglas Morton: I am glad hon. members applaud because this is the very thing we need them to recognize. I am sure that the things the government has done and will do, will aid the people of this country. I am not one who says we have done everything that can be done and that we have solved all the problems. However, at least this party is recognizing the problems and trying to do something about them, which is more than the Liberals did during their 22 years.


William Moore Benidickson: I found it very interesting to follow the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton). He referred to the 22 years the Liberals were in power, and that seems to have been a sort of theme song for the government backbenchers. I want to remind them of the solid basis that was created after the end of world war II. This government has seen fit to introduce measures which, in their relationship to the social and economic advancement of this country, have been merely the placing of one brick upon another, so to speak on a foundation created by the government of Mackenzie King.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the hon. member if he is referring to the $46 per month old age pension?


William Moore Benidickson: I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that when old age pension legislation was introduced by the Liberal party in 1925 and 1926, and by the former member for Kenora-Rainy River, it was the Conservative Senate, with its huge majority, which blocked that advance in social legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the Prime Minister was one of their candidates at that time.


William Moore Benidickson: I am going to say that in 1945 when family allowances were introduced by the Liberal government and which, by the way, have not been touched by this government in almost five years, it was the associates of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and I think he sat with them in the opposition, who strongly opposed this suggested social improvement.
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member point to a single associate of mine who was actually sitting in the house at that time?


William Moore Benidickson: I will refer to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green);
I will refer to the British high commissioner in London, I will refer to the lieutenant governor of Ontario, who sat in this house for the city of Toronto.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member had better be a little more careful.


William Moore Benidickson: This is not a new line of argument on economic matters such as we have before us, as was advanced by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton). We inherited troubles.
Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce used the phrase "We have been in office for four and a half years." I want to remind some of those on the opposite side that this argument was attempted by the last prime minister with a Conservative tag, the late Lord Bennett, when he said he inherited troubles and had not corrected them. At the next opportunity the Canadian people put him out of office.


Mr. Henderson:: That was the greatest mistake they ever made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They have just been complaining for four and a half years.


William Moore Benidickson: We heard from the hon. member for Davenport, who preceded me, that from a Liberal government we could expect a return to what he called a tight money policy. I do not want to deal with that at any length, but I do want to remind him that as a result of the terrible financial policies of his government the Canadian taxpayers on their federal debt alone are paying in interest more than $200 million more than what they paid in the last year of the former Liberal administration.
I want to say that the Minister of Finance cannot get away for long with gimmicks and sleight of hand, such as he introduced even in his most recent tabling of estimates. It is to be found that despite the fact that interest rates are not going down to any appreciable extent, and despite the fact that our total debt is going up, in his estimates the Minister of Finance conceals a possible expense in the forthcoming year to the extent of more than $50 million. He indicated that in a comparison of this year's interest costs with last year's interest costs, as presented in the book of estimates, there was a difference of $50 million, because in a side note on the same page -and perhaps the minister knows this-it is indicated that the actual expenditures for

Alleged Lack of Economic Growth interest when he presented the blue book, were $50 million more than the figure he uses in the main tables when he compares 1961-62 estimated costs of interest with the estimated costs of 1962-63.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the hon. member not aware that the bases of estimating these interest charges are precisely what they have always been year by year? There has been no change in the bases of those estimates in any respect.


William Moore Benidickson: The only member of the government who has yet spoken is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who spoke yesterday. He is of course a very cheery cheerleader for the government, but if one examines his speech he can find that it is not from this side but from the other side that one gets misleading statements.
I quote from page 1268 of Hansard where he referred to "the greatest prosperity this country has ever known." He also referred to an increase in exports of close to 8 per cent. I propose to deal with some of those matters. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh), who has just interrupted me, referred to the phenomenal growth in gross national product and said that businessmen are happy in Canada today.
Now I do not want to quote from those who might have a partisan view. I shall refer to some appointees of the present government, and perhaps first and foremost would be the president of the productivity council. The hon. member for Leeds made reference to that this afternoon. I am not going to repeat some of the indications that are available as to whether this country has been growing or, on the contrary, getting behind under the present government. These are the words of Mr. DeYoung, president of the productivity council:
Let the figures speak for themselves. In terms of gross national product per person in constant dollars, using 1950 as 100 per cent, Canada shows itself as the losing team, limping sadly behind the competitive pack.
The hon. member for Leeds gave the comparative figures for various industrial countries of the world, and all these things have to be considered in relative terms. Rather than take a source in Canada, let us take one of major consequence in American investment. I refer to the Morgan Guaranty Company of New York, which looked at Canada's progress under this government. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) says the government's programs have produced phenomenal improvements in our economic activity-


David Vaughan Pugh: What are you quoting from?


William Moore Benidickson: The Morgan Guaranty Survey, reported in the Financial Times of June, 1961.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is eight
months ago.


William Moore Benidickson: You had been in office over four years at that time. The report says:
At an average 1.3 per cent per year, real economic expansion since 1956 has not kept up with the increase of population and labour force. Real output per capita has declined more than 1 per cent a year. Amid this slippage, the unemployment rate has doubled in four years to an average 7 per cent of the labour force.
I have referred to one member of the productivity council, its chairman; but first let me refer to another appointee of this government, the well known Canadian industrialist Mr. E. P. Taylor. We hear from the government benches that we, on this side, are creating a bad image for Canada abroad. In some respects it is flattering to think that a relatively small group could get such attention abroad; but Mr. Taylor, who has taken a great interest in the possibility of investment abroad, has made some comments.
He says that in his view Canada has never had as poor a reputation among business people abroad than that which has been typical of the last few months.


Mr. Pallell:: That is utter nonsense.


William Moore Benidickson: These are interesting
items to which I think the government should pay attention.


John Cameron Pallett: Where did the hon. member get that last quotation from, or what is alleged to be a quotation?


William Moore Benidickson: I am referring to an article by Mr. Fraser Robertson, financial reported of the Globe and Mail, which is a publication that normally has good will towards a Conservative government, and it quotes Mr. Taylor in that report.


John Cameron Pallett: Perhaps the hon. member
would put the entire quotation on the record.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That would make it even worse.


William Moore Benidickson: It would. We have heard from the Minister of Trade and Commerce that businessmen think this government is wonderful. We also heard that today from the hon. member from Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh), but the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Kirkpatrick said he sees no indication that we have yet provided the conditions necessary for the continued growth we require. That is the essence of the motion of want of confidence that has been moved here.

I think all hon. members have developed an admiration for the talents and abilities of Professor John Deutsch, who appeared before the Senate committee on unemployment and who was at one time secretary of our treasury board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And who is now on a commission appointed by the government.


William Moore Benidickson: Indeed the government showed their confidence in him, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate indicates, because Professor Deutsch was made a member of a commission appointed by the government after the Senate reported on unemployment. He was appointed to that commission, which required cabinet recommendation. Professor Deutsch says:
The recovery which is now taking place will have to be very much stronger than any of the cyclical recoveries since the end of the war if full output and employment are to be achieved.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member should give the date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is the Queen's Quarterly, current edition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The date?


William Moore Benidickson: That is available. I happen to have a copy of the Financial Post which contains a report of the speech given by Professor Deutsch as the vice principal of Queen's University.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then it was not in
the Queen's Quarterly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it is.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, and the earlier one-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will send for it for you.


William Moore Benidickson: Then I quote from a gentleman who has been very restrained in his comments but for whom I think all of us have a very high regard. I refer to Mr. Graham Towers, who for a long time has been silent after severing his relationship with government as the governor of the Bank of Canada. He says:
We should not be satisfied with the progress of the Canadian economy during recent years. The fact that per capita gross national product is less in real terms than it was five years ago, combined with unemployment that has persisted at too high a level, should inspire a most serious and objective search for the reasons behind this unsatisfactory situation.
This is why I feel this house should be very dissatisfied with the kind of speech made yesterday by the ebullient Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is not enough to quote gross figures and not give relative figures, when Canada-as has been explained by so many previous speakers-in a relative way has been 26207-1-841
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth not even standing still but economically has been going behind under this particular regime.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What does the hon. member mean by "going behind"? Is the hon. member seriously suggesting that the economy, as he says, is going behind?


William Moore Benidickson: In relative terms, when related to growth of population and those who need jobs.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is changing his statement now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The figures speak for themselves.


William Moore Benidickson: I say that is certainly very true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The per capita production.


William Moore Benidickson: Do not take my word for it, Mr. Finance Minister; listen to what was said this month by the Financial Post, which is perhaps the outstanding financial journal in Canada and which is impartial, as far as I know. If anything, it perhaps has a high regard for a Conservative government, if we have a Conservative government; but they are a little dubious as to whether we have a Conservative government, even with the present Minister of Finance in his present portfolio. They say:
The Canadian economy is operating about 20 per cent below capacity. If men, money and materials had been fully employed in 1961, Canada's G.N.P. could have been over $44 billion instead of under $37 billion.
Some hon. members on the government side may have thought the hon. member for Niagara Falls was partisan or exaggerating when she gave the figure of $5 billion, but there is what the Financial Post has to say, and it is a much larger figure than was quoted yesterday by the hon. member:
The result of falling below the trend line established between 1945 and 1957-
That is, under the former regime:
-has been unemployment at twice the rates of the early 1950's-
Mr. Pallet!: Why does not the hon. member quote the other extracts from the Financial Post which say that the government is doing a good job?


William Moore Benidickson: Perhaps my hon. friend will do that. I have not found that they have been anything but very critical of the over-all picture.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You cannot find anything like that.
1314	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth


William Moore Benidickson: They have been very critical of the economic policies of the present government.


Mr. Jones:: Look at those nervous Liberals.


William Moore Benidickson: When we find uneasiness about the staying power of the present increase in current expansion the real answer that we must get from the government is an indication of what they are going to do beyond what they have told us in the speech from the throne, to make sure that these huge losses in production and wealth and their impact on human misfortune are not to be continued. Mr. Walter Lippmann, the well known correspondent in Washington, says that down there there is something different; President Kennedy is seeking not only power but is making plans to catch the recession before it gains momentum.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he point to one place where Mr. Walter Lippmann said what the hon. member has just now said, that they are doing things differently down in Washington from what we are doing here in Canada?


William Moore Benidickson: I should like to hear from my hon. friend what-


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is your statement.


William Moore Benidickson: I should like to hear specifically what my hon. friend, who is the senior economic minister-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


William Moore Benidickson: -is doing to catch the next recession before it gathers momentum, because-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member not put words into Mr. Walter Lippmann's mouth that Walter Lippmann has never used at all.


William Moore Benidickson: I am quoting exactly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have another Speaker now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is not quoting Walter Lippmann.


William Moore Benidickson: I am so used to the Minister of Finance calling everybody in this country a liar, including me and most of the hon. members in this house-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


William Moore Benidickson: -that it really rolls off me.


An hon. Member:: You can easily prove him wrong by reading the quotation.
(Mr. Martin (Essex East).]


Donald Methuen Fleming: Show us what Walter Lippmann says.


William Moore Benidickson: I have quoted exactly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You did not.


William Moore Benidickson: We have here a motion of lack of confidence that the government in relative terms has not been advancing a program which is adequate to take care of the growth in our economy that would result in relatively full employment, relatively good tax revenues and relatively good progress. That is the essence of the amendment before us.
A subamendment has been put forward which reads in this way:
by the expansion of public and co-operative ownership for such purposes as the operation of utilities, the development of resources, the elimination of monopoly concentrations of power, and the operation of major enterprises immediately and directly affecting the entire nation.
Speaking for the official opposition I may say that while some of the wording of that subamendment is effective, we cannot support it because in our view it is undesirably restrictive of the main amendment. The main amendment says that by any possible form we must have growth. We believe that this growth would normally come from the encouragement of private business. We have never been loath as perhaps even our most understanding private enterpriser, Mr. C. D. Howe, has said, to have the state give the utmost stimulus to that type of growth.


Mr. Graffley:: What would he think of the hon. member for Assiniboia?


William Moore Benidickson: Emphasis is placed in the subamendment on the expansion of co-operation. Although this is important we do not believe this force would provide the greatest stimulus to the Canadian economy. We believe that incentives are required and that they would be most effective if applied to both public and private enterprise. The main emphasis to growth must come from healthy and vigorous enterprise throughout the economy. As we have indicated this requires planning beyond what this government is prepared to provide.
The productivity council has been in operation for a year and in my opinion has not yet reported in adequate form through a minister. I read yesterday that it is not an advisory board and has no authority. They deny all that. When the establishment of the council was announced in the throne speech in December 1960 there was much fanfare about the likelihood of its value. I hope a minister of the crown will tell us more about its usefulness and what it has accomplished, in a year particularly when it is denied that it

has authority of a kind we say would be desirable for an economic board or council within government for co-ordinating all the economic thinking and activity that takes place in so many individual departments and which at the moment possibly is not properly co-ordinated.
The other day I examined figures showing how much spending has been done by the government. I found that out of the unemployment insurance fund the following expenditures were made:
Benefit payments
Year Ending	Amount
March 31, 1958	 $385 million
March 31, 1959	 478.6 million
March 31, 1960	 415 million
March 31, 1961	 513 million
We can only surmise what the figure will be for the year ending March 31, 1962. It is now evident that the Minister of Finance will not present a budget this month. But let us be generous to him and assume the expenditure will not exceed $450 million. If that were the amount the total expended since 1957 would be $2,242 million. At the end of December last there were 601,000 claimants. The actual holdings and investments dropped like stones since this government came into office.
Someone said the other day that when they looked at the figures for only two years it was seen that we could have built two St. Lawrence seaways with the disbursements. The St. Lawrence seaway was considered a major project for Canada. What about the Chignecto canal? What about the second trans-Canada highway about which the Prime Minister spoke the other day in Edmonton? Is the government simply going to drop these sums of money in unemployment insurance like stones without thoughtful planning?
The chief and basic problem as I see it in the four and a half years during which the present government has been in office, with unfortunate results, arises from the muddle, squabbling and disunity that exist within the government and its lack of cohesion and leadership. Is it any wonder there is confusion in the-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Opposition.


William Moore Benidickson: -government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Memories of the Quebec visit.


William Moore Benidickson: That was quite a comic opera of family rows and contradictions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There were no family rows.


William Moore Benidickson: With respect to almost any subject one could mention we can charge the
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth government and particularly the Minister of Finance and his department with confusing and contradictory policies. Where do we stand on interest rates? The minister has contradicted himself in every budget. What about the exchange rate? What about inflation? What about monetary policy? It is only a year ago the minister disclaimed any responsibility for actions and policies and then later decided to fire the governor of the Bank of Canada. In other words, we have had expedients rather than policies. This is the main roadblock to confidence in Canada today.
I invite the ministers of the crown to give us their opinions on a motion of this kind which is concerned with the growth of our economy. I invite them to give us information not only with respect to the productivity council to which I have referred but also with respect to the Bladen report.
In October a delegation from six communities where the automobile industry is established visited the Minister of Finance and indicated they wanted action and not eleventh hour decisions which are so typical of this government. There was no decision. Is there not something of consequence for our economy involved here? What about jobs?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to indicate what action he and his party think should be taken on the recommendations of the Bladen royal commission?


Mr. Caron:: That was put on the record yesterday.


William Moore Benidickson: I feel the report contained much relating to the efficiencies of large scale production. That could be given some encouragement by the Minister of Finance. With unemployment as it is this winter the minister should not delay giving leadership. From October when the representatives of six communities visited him until now, no decision has been taken. He should not delay until he brings down his budget, which we know will not be brought down this month.


Henry Frank Jones: The hon. gentleman has not answered the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the hon. gentleman support the recommendations of the royal commission?


William Moore Benidickson: In 1957 the Conservative opposition concentrated on the oil industry. When the Conservatives formed the government they decided to appoint another royal commission. Again they put in wraps an

Alleged Lack of Economic Growth industry, perhaps the only one which could have made progress and substantial advances at that time. This government is very enamoured of royal commissions. The Clark report on social security, a vital document, gathered dust on their desks for three years.
I ask the government how concerned it is about stimulating the economy in view of its record with respect to roads to resources. In January 1958 the government introduced a program concerning roads to resources of very much interest to northern Ontario. The government's partners in office in Toronto were so disinterested that unanimity was not achieved and no agreement was reached. Instead of building roads which would have required an expenditure of $1.5 million on the part of the federal and provincial government in this period of severe unemployment and at a time when future unemployment might have been arrested, it was decided all they could expend was $500,000.
I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is absent at the moment why there has been so much dickering with respect to the uranium contract. Would this not lead to job opportunities? This is typical of the lack of leadership we have in this country at the present time.
Last year when the Minister of Finance introduced the budget we thought he was placing considerable reliance on a policy of devaluing the dollar. He indicated this would have the effect of assisting our export industries. How can that be reconciled with his firm conviction of a year previous that this should not and could not be done, that it represented a gigantic gamble? This is another indication of the confusion, contrariness and unpredictability which is responsible for the hesitancy some businessmen and exporters feel about having faith in the economic policies of the government. I refer to trade. The Minister of Finance is known to be a person who has great skill in the use of his hectoring manners. He can go to conferences and bluster, scream and so on. But the question I ask is this. Where is the good will upon which we can build trade?
The hon. member for Leeds referred to a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in 1961, and in which he indicated that if another party was in power they would not create this iron curtain, would not adopt these tactics of wringing hands and screaming through key holes rather than joining conferences, but would participate in a serious manner in order to ascertain whether some of the great positive ideals of extending world trade could be fashioned with their participation. But from this government we have heard only of furtive restrictions against our best


customer, namely Great Britain. We have observed serious errors of judgment in connection with our trade arrangements with such countries as Cuba in reference to which, as will be recalled, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "You cannot do business with any better businessmen". The Leader of the the Opposition has been joined by some extremely eminent and distinguished people.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will be fair enough to say that the minister who used that expression was frank enough to withdraw it later and to express regret. I am quite sure it is not worthy of the hon. member to refer to the original expression without also referring to the explanatory statement that followed.


William Moore Benidickson: Businessmen will be glad to hear that he withdrew it with regret. I do not intend to list all the company of people who belatedly, after the Leader of the Opposition spoke, saw some advantage in connection with our affinity with wider trade groups. However, the company is rather distinguished. I think of the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the president of the Montreal stock exchange. I think of Mr. Weston, one of our outstanding businessmen who also had some business experience overseas. I think of Mr. E. P. Taylor who also has extended his operations overseas. I think of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I think of the national chamber of commerce. I think of the presidents of the Bank of Montreal, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the Bank of Nova Scotia, and there may be others.
On the part of the government we have had fumbling and indecision in connection with trade. I think trade is perhaps the only area of real value in which can be created new wealth which will give us the growth we believe necessary in order to provide employment and the progress which has not been forthcoming in past years when in relative terms, based on population and on a discount for the inflation which has taken place, this country has gone behind rather than forward under this government.


Henry Frank Jones: Not at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Rubbish. (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I was very much surprised to hear the remarks made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), because ever since the present government has been in power, the opposition has voted in favour of all the measures proposed to the house by the government, as well as the estimates that were submitted,

except the measure concerning Mr. Coyne's dismissal and another one to help Canadian industry.
In fact, I am astonished by the attitude of the members opposite. If they criticize today, they are not logical with themselves because they have voted, as I have just said, in favour of all the legislative measures submitted to the house by the present government; they have also approved straight off the expenditures of the present government.
I was also surprised by the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh).
I was amazed to hear her repeat those words of the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe:
If our national development had been left entirely to private enterprise, Canada would not have attained its present status as a nation. And unless government continues to take a lead by well planned initiatives, guidance and regulation, it will not continue to develop as it should.
Mr. Speaker, I found that when the Right Hon. C. D. Howe had to leave the realm of Canadian politics, he secured the directorship of more than 32 Canadian companies. In my opinion, the fact that he accepted all these appointments is directly opposed to the ideas he had put forward previously.


Augustin Brassard: It was a tribute to his competence.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the opposition speaks of economic planning. They would like to see the state control private enterprise, so that everything would come from the state.
During the last world conflict, we had a taste of controls and restrictions imposed by the state on our Canadian economy, when capital and salaries were under government control. Individual freedom was also restricted, as people were often detained without any kind of trial. Well, I think that the Canadian people are not ready to accept such a controlled economy, which would put everything in the hands of the state and, thereby, destroy private enterprise.
The state should rather assume a complementary part, while freedom of expression and freedom of investment in our natural resources must be left to the individual.
Mr. Speaker, I have here the encyclical issued by His Holiness Pope John XXIII, entitled Mater et Magistra, from which I quote the following paragraph:
Socialization is, at one and the same time, an effect and a cause of the growing intervention of the public authorities in even the most crucial matters, such as those concerning the care of
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth
health, the instruction and education of the younger generation, the controlling of professional careers and the methods of care and rehabilitation of those variously handicapped.
Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who is so frequently mentioned in this house and who was at the helm of this nation's economic affairs for many years, unfortunately did not have any vision with regard to this country's future.
Indeed, when, during the war, billions of dollars were spent on national defence, it would have been easy for him, I think, to conceive and prepare a program for post-war years. As a matter of fact, unemployment was certainly expected, since the unemployment insurance fund was created at the time.
Mr. C. D. Howe should have gazed into the Mackenzie King crystal ball to find means of setting up a program to help Canada's postwar economy.


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Pickersgill had it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, various commissions were established by that government, especially the Gordon commission which recommended that the people of the maritimes be given one-way tickets out of the Atlantic provinces.
The previous government did not have any confidence in the future of the maritime provinces, but the government of the day has, by its policies and its action, taken steps to hasten the expansion of the maritimes and it will keep on doing so.
Mr. Gordon's comments were an insult to the people of Canada and especially to all those living in the maritimes. Fortunately, Canada will never put its destiny in the hands of men like Messrs. Gordon, Pearson, La-montagne and Pickersgill because it does not want to suffer again from the kind of planning it experienced under the previous Liberal government, that is belt-tightening policies.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time, they were lending millions of dollars for the construction of a pipe line in Canada.
Since 1957, Canadian exports have increased by 10 per cent, while our imports have decreased by 3 per cent.
May I be allowed to refer to an article published in the Sherbrooke newspaper La Tribune, which reads as follows:
In the field of international trade, Canada must face strong competition from countries where the cost of producing articles we export is lower than ours. Until now, we have managed to hold our own inasmuch as the increase in the cost of raw materials and labour has been offset by an increase in productivity, but this achievement is becoming more and more difficult.
1318	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth
This situation is causing grave concern in many circles which are well aware of existing conditions. Warnings have already been sounded, pointing out the danger for Canada of finding itself excluded from international outlets because of its inability to put products on the market at the same price as those offered by other exporting countries.
We are already affected by those circumstances at home and some industries find themselves in a critical position because of stiff competition from abroad. Exports are of vital importance to Canada and that importance is emphasized by the fact that our country ranks fourth among the trading nations of the world. A few days ago, the president of the Royal Bank of Canada warned his fellow-citizens and said that we had to expect that not only the Russians and Chinese but also other Asiatics and Africans would be in a position to offer manufactured products at bargain prices.
To meet that competition we will have to take the measures required: we must increase productivity and cut down production costs with all the sacrifices involved for the manufacturers and their employees. Otherwise we shall run the risk of being cut off from world markets, which could have serious effects on our prosperity.
I believe that it would be fair for labour, when negotiating the renewal of work agreements, to consider not only its own problems but also the fact that its action might have repercussions on the economy of this country.
Mr. Speaker, it is also appropriate, I think, to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to continue his efforts in order that Canada may have exhibits at international fairs. This is excellent publicity. In that respect, we should follow the example set by Japan which conducts intensive publicity throughout the world in order to sell its products. We should also encourage the Minister of Trade and Commerce to send, every year, trade missions throughout the world to make the economy of our country better known and to promote the sale of our products.
It would be a good thing also that the number of Canadian industrialists on those trade missions be increased and that a greater number of French-speaking industrialists join them, since there is a great number of Frenchspeaking industrialists in the province of Quebec who would be happy to show their products abroad and thus contribute to the expansion of our external trade.
As far as agriculture is concerned, farm income reached a record level in 1961. Economists foresee the same thing for 1962. I wish to refer here to a speech made at the convention of the Cooperative Federee de Quebec, which was held at Mount Royal hotel in Montreal on the occasion of its 40th


annual meeting. The convention was attended by 1,200 people. I quote:
Mr. Nadeau emphasized before the meeting that co-operative production plans are a sure means of raising farm income, since they are meant precisely to increase the net revenue of farm operators, to enable them to take better advantage of their own markets and to supply consumers with quality products.
Those words are not mere wishful thinking. In fact, with the exception of a few dairy products and barbecue chickens, most other farm products do not meet the needs of the people of the province. Quebec, which consumes 29 per cent of meat production in Canada, accounts for only 12 per cent of that production.
Thus last year, when there was a demand for 1.9 million hogs, only 1.5 million were marketed while 200,000 were imported. If the present rate of increase in population and the present rate of pork consumption per capita are maintained, the demand will be 2.1 million hogs in 1966 and 2.4 million in 1971. Which means that if production is to reach the level of consumption in 1971, production will have to be doubled between now and then.
Also, out of a total market of 125 million dozens of eggs in 1961, which will increase to 140 million dozens in 1966 and to 157 million dozens in 1971, Quebec produced only 62 million dozens in 1961.
Roughly speaking, it is the same story with regard to the production of turkey, lamb, beef and even veal.
On the other hand, co-operative plans are not new to co-operatives. Co-operatives have always brought under the same control, that of the farmers, the production, processing and distribution functions. The joining together of the means of action of a great number of small farms provides them with a great strength on the supply and farm product markets.
Finally, concluded Mr. Nadeau, production cooperative plans offer advantages both at the producers' level and at the local and central co-operative levels.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that Canadian farmers do not rely only on the state to increase their income. The state must help farmers, it must play a complementary role. I believe that one of the best means farmers may use to help themselves is to organize themselves through co-operatives, which are the ideal method for the controlling of production and for ensuring a stable income to Canadian farmers.
The present government has done much for all Canadian farmers.
According to the statement of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier)-a statement made outside the house of course-the Canadian government is giving everything to western producers and nothing to eastern producers. I consider that statement as untrue. The hon. member for Laurier would be ashamed to repeat those words in the western provinces.

Mr. Speaker, the present government is responsible for the increase of the floor price on butter from 58 cents to 64 cents per pound, which was put into effect to help our farmers.
When the U.C.C. was coming to Ottawa to submit its briefs to the then minister of agriculture, the government chose to ignore its briefs as well as those that were submitted by the Cooperative Federee. A subsidy of 25 cents per hundred pounds of milk has also been granted to our producers, under certain conditions. From 1959 to 1960, out of nearly $11 million handed out by the Canadian government for all the provinces of Canada, almost $5 million have been paid out to the farmers in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the present government has been of great assistance to our Canadian farmers. Under the previous administration, the Canadian farm loan ceiling was $15,000, and loans could not go beyond 65 per cent of the value of the farm. Under the present administration, the loans range up to $20,000 and even $27,500, and they are accepted up to 75 per cent of the value of the farm.
Mr. Speaker, as my riding is a tobaccogrowing centre, I wish to underline the fact that since July 1959, a special duty of 75 cents per pound is levied on synthetic binders imported from the United States. This duty has been imposed in order to assist the cigar tobacco industry in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the government of the province of Quebec also has its responsibilities as regards agriculture.
I notice that the order passed by that government concerning wood, and which gives the producers $11 per cord-


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is straying a little from the subject we are discussing, and I would ask him to come back to it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, in order to correct a mistake I just made, I must say that in spite of an order from the provincial government, wood is still selling at $11 a cord. However, protests are being made to obtain a better price.
Allow me also, Mr. Speaker, to point out a situation that prevails now in the province of Quebec and which will surely affect the agricultural economy of this country; I refer to the provincial government's decision to refuse a higher school of agriculture to the Montreal district.
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see that I have again to remind the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that the decisions taken by Quebec are not germane to the present debate. I, therefore, would ask him to keep to the subject of the discussion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to draw attention to that question, because it affects the agricultural economy of the province of Quebec and of the country. However, I shall bow to your ruling.
There was also some mention of loans to be offered to municipalities. The federal government has some kind of a bank to grant loans to municipalities. We should think twice and use caution before implementing such a formula, so that it does not conflict with provincial autonomy, since municipal affairs are a provincial responsibility.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) for having extended, following the requests of Canadian municipalities the period provided for the winter works program. All those measures are a contribution to the country's economy.
There is reason to rejoice, Mr. Speaker, over the decisions reached by the Canadian government in the various fields of our economic activities.
As I said earlier, our opponents across the aisle, even though they criticized and made gloomy contributions to the debates of the house, have nevertheless supported all the leglislation introduced by the government and all the estimates, except in two instances.
(Text):


Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: We are
concerned this afternoon with an amendment dealing with the problem of economic growth. I think this debate has shown up the extent to which we substantially differ on how this can be achieved. I think I can agree with the hon. member for Niagara Falls that this will be the central issue in the coming election campaign because all other matters revolve about it. We cannot have full employment without economic growth. Our welfare policies, old age pensions, veterans pensions, and all the other means by which we transfer money from one group to another will be of no account without economic growth. Our foreign policy and our defence commitments can both be seriously weakened unless we have economic growth. Even our hopes for a better trained and more skilled working force can be destroyed unless we can achieve this kind of economic growth.

Alleged Lack of Economic Growth
We are, therefore, dealing with a very important decision. One of the former statesmen of this nation suggested that the twentieth century would belong to Canada. Well, we will have to make a decision very soon, within the next few years, or I am afraid we will have to revise that statement quite substantially. The New Democratic party believes that this goal can only be achieved by long range planning, and that the greater part of this planning must be done at the federal level. We believe that it must be done democratically. We believe that in every stage the planning should be under the scrutiny of the people and their representatives in this parliament. We believe this planning must be done with the co-operation of all concerned, of management, labour, farm and the consumer. All these people have a right to play a part in it.
Finally, we recognize the over-all responsibility of the representatives of the people gathered in this parliament in the formation of the actual goals to which this planning can be directed. In other words, the New Democratic party believes that democracy has an economic as well as a political connotation. Until this is an accepted part of our system, political democracy itself could well be in danger. I was very much interested last night in the speech by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). He is always interesting. One of the remarks he made was that we must now allow the state to undermine the role of the individual. I believe my political party can agree with this because we believe that the individual can only work properly when the state itself provides the opportunity.
It has been said of this government by its spokesmen that it does not believe in planning. It believes rather in slogans; that the issues confronting this nation are those revolving about the distinction between free enterprise and socialism. The fact that a minister of the crown could make such a fantastic statement and not be laughed off the stage shows how far we are behind in our thinking about social and economic issues. In Europe, they stopped talking about socialism. They have stopped worrying about socialism and gone to work to deal with their economies which are moving ahead to provide the kind of growth which we in Canada need. They realize that the terms "socialism" and "free enterprise" are completely irrelevant in the twentieth century. How we in Canada with the Canadian National, Trans-Canada Air Lines, the national film board, the C.B.C. and Polymer, with our dominion coal board, the fisheries prices support board and the

national research council, can talk about free enterprise, is indeed a mystery.
I am reminded of a little town not far from Ottawa. Sometimes in the summer I visit this town. There is not a single industry there and even the cheese factory has closed down. The railway trains do not even stop at the station any longer, but simply flash by. I wondered how these people actually lived, how they got along. I found out. At the end of the month, in came all the family allowance cheques, the old age pensions, the veterans pensions and the other various transfer payments we have in this nation. Of course, we agree with those. It is rather interesting, though, to note that in the last election every single person in that town but one voted for the Conservative party. This person was a postmaster who had been appointed during the Liberal regime. I suppose in the next election these people will go to the polls again and vote for the Conservative party, free enterprise. Well, this is the kind of dichotomy of thought we have in this country. I think it is an extremely strange thing indeed, that we are still talking about socialism and free enterprise. Well, of course, according to the philosophy of this government it is easy to be right, it is easy to be successful, because there is no basis for assessing either success or failure. There are no goals to attain and therefore there are no goals to miss. One would have to agree with a quotation from a little book I found recently in the library entitled "Undirected Society". It reads thus:
The politician works among variables so numerous and so uncertain that his most brilliant insights can never be proved right and his grossest blunders proved wrong.
And so this government takes refuge in statistics as a giant curtain to hide the obvious.
We are told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there are more people at work than ever before. Obviously there are because the population is larger. Could you imagine the chaos if that situation did not exist? However, the government does not mention that there are more people unemployed now than in the 1930's, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not mention the social problems that this has created in many parts of Canada. He did not mention that in one city alone welfare is up 180 per cent over the previous year.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that the gross national product is 22 per cent higher over a four or five year period, but does he not realize that the gross national product could be 100 per cent higher in 20 years time, and we could still have two thirds of our population unemployed? The only relevance his statement would have is

simply that technology has moved ahead; but we have not moved ahead in learning to provide employment. Thus we continue tinkering away, refusing to believe that the human mind can bring order and progress in areas of economics and social welfare as it has in so many other areas.
This element of economic growth is very important at this particular time because we have never been so conscious of the new trade patterns which are developing throughout the world. In many countries, including those in the European common market, there has been an acceptance of a much greater amount of government initiative and direction. They have set goals. They have set national goals and, indeed, international goals while we blither and mumble on about free enterprise.
We in Canada talk apologetically about a full employment society while these countries already have that. We talk about the possibility of a police state, should we try to set up a full employment society, at the same time forgetting that Great Britain, West Germany and many other countries have already achieved that objective. What other kind of society can we have? How can we compete with these countries when we have 7, 8, 9 or maybe even 11 per cent of our people unemployed during the winter months?
Let us look at this very dispassionately. Let us forget the amount of social welfare we pay at present to these people who are unemployed. Instead, let us remember we made a decision some time in the 19th century that we were going to keep people alive and not let them starve; that we were going to pay for them to eat and to be clothed and housed whether they are working or not. We decided that, and our Christian conscience demands that they be clothed and housed in a decent way, and kept at a level of subsistence which we could accept in our western civilization.
Once this decision is made, surely the only thing we have to decide is how we are going to implement it? When we ask ourselves that, we find we have only two alternatives left. We can allow them to become productive workers or we can allow them to be unemployed and be a drag on our whole economy. We can allow them to bear the cost of government and bear the cost of those things we regard as being necessary to our way of life, or we can allow them to take out of society what they must have in order to survive. Those are the only two alternatives we have. In fact it is only a matter of organization once you make your basic decision.
When he spoke yesterday, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said with some pride that for the first time we have a balance of
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth trade. Is that the only thing we have to be concerned with-a balance of trade?


George James McIlraith: Only in commodities.


Walter George Pitman: Yes, a balance of trade in commodities; but that does not answer the major problem. The fact that we are trading wheat for transistor radios raises the point of the employment provided. I may say we are all very glad to see the wheat being sold, but I am sure all of us realize that the labour content of our exports does not in any way compare with the labour content of the imports we are bringing in. I think we should be more concerned about the level of exports which we have in manufactured products, a field in which we are far behind Italy, West Germany, Sweden and Switzerland. By exporting more manufactured products we are going to produce more labour and we are going to keep our people employed.


John Cameron Pallett: Would the hon. member permit a question? What does he propose? How does he propose to deal with the problem?


Walter George Pitman: I am sure if you read our program you would find out. We believe in a far greater measure of social investment and in encouraging far more employment right here in Canada. We would also be interested in expanding trade as much as possible by giving low interest rates, credit and so forth. Indeed I would be very glad to send the parliamentary secretary a copy of our program.


John Cameron Pallett: Is the hon. member suggesting higher tariffs against these imports?


Walter George Pitman: I can assure the hon. member for Peel that I am not suggesting higher import tariffs. I think I have stated already that we are in favour of selling our wheat, but we recognize a basic problem. It is one that must be faced-that we in our trade are not creating the same amount of labour here as in those countries we are trading with. This is obviously a problem which the government should face, and I think we have to develop our policies so that they can expand the amount of labour provided.


John Cameron Pallett: Is the hon. member in favour of free trade, if he is not suggesting higher tariffs?


Walter George Pitman: We believe in free trade throughout the world over a longer period of time.


Mr.   Nesbill@: Better tell them that in Peterborough.


Walter George Pitman: I have told them that in Peterborough and they are quite aware of the problem involved. My friends across the way do not realize that our and their supporters
1322	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth are in favour of planning. I read an article in the Globe and Mail on January 16 entitled "Urge Quebec economy be planned". This was no group of wild-eyed radicals who wanted to create prosperity. The group mentioned in the article included the Quebec federation of labour, the confederation of national syndicates, the provincial chamber of commerce, the Catholic farmers' union and the professional association of industrialists. These are the men who are suggesting planning and among them are supporters of the present government.
I was also interested in some remarks made by Mr. W. S. Kirkpatrick, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, whose name has already been used in this debate. He has been reported as suggesting the establishment of a federal group to accelerate expansion, a federal department of economic expansion. You see, you cannot set goals without planning, and according to Mr. Kirkpatrick we must do so in such a way as to accelerate the country's expansion and keep all Canadians working. He says:
Such a department should not be an adjunct of an existing department but a separate ministry headed by a senior cabinet minister.
It should have an advisory body, including the best brains of the country, drawn from business, labour, agriculture and academic circles, but selected as private citizens for their knowledge and experience and not as representing any group or organization.
In consultation with this advisory group, the new department would have the responsibility of developing general economic policies, and other government departments would plan their actions within the policies so established.
It is interesting to follow the chamber of commerce and to view some of its latest pronouncements. I was interested in the remarks of Mr. E. P. Taylor who recently made his first speech in 16 years. What did he suggest? He suggested a "big daddy" on economics. I shall quote from the Toronto daily Star which carried the following article:
Toronto's E. P. Taylor last night called for a federal "big daddy" to oversee the whole field of finance and trade.
In an interview following his first public speech in 16 years, he said such a man should be responsible for several departments, including finance, trade and commerce, national revenue and labour.
In his 40 minute speech concluding the Canadian Chamber of Commerce annual meeting, the president of the Argus Corporation got closer to the heart of Canada's ailing economy and came up with more concrete proposals than 650 delegates in three days of floundering.
The speech was based on on-the-spot reports by two economists hired by Mr. Taylor to study economic trends in Britain, France, West Germany and Sweden.
-he proposed the formation of a new federal cabinet post-minister of economic affairs. The minister, he says, would be a kind of "big daddy" over several departments-


It is almost Orwellian in its nature, if one remembers "Big Brother". He added:
This man would be able to draw in people from business, industry and labour and put their heads together.
The Germans have done this, and the French in a different way. This is one of the main reasons they are getting things done over there.
So says Mr. Taylor, but the labour movement has recognized this, and some time ago in his annual statement, Mr. Claude Jodoin stated:
We suggest that the time has arrived when the appointment of a social economic advisory council should be effected as the first step toward a better relationship and a united attack on our economic problems.
We sincerely believe there is a need for planning by this government, and the second major problem is also associated with trade. It is the problem of productivity.
We are told that our prosperity depends on our productivity. We can see the need for this but what will be the effect on the entire nation, on those who are not going to receive the benefits of this productivity? We have a productivity council but how can labour be very enthralled if productivity means fewer jobs? Only by a national effort at productivity in which management and labour can see the advantages, can we achieve this. Labour must not be placed at a disadvantage.
Some days ago the Minister of Labour expressed dissatisfaction that there was a labour management committee in existence but no meetings had been held. It would be pointless to hold them, to get them together, when this government is against planning. There is no pattern into which they can fit their plans. There is no point in planning and getting together unless they know where the government is going, and certainly there is no way of being certain of that.
Just a little over a year ago there was a great gathering of the economic leaders of our nation in Ottawa. They met, presented their reports and went home. What came of it all? Perhaps some of its work found its way into legislation but certainly those who attended the meeting do not feel their suggestions have been given proper credence by the government.
There can be no assurance about the benefits of higher productivity unless the government takes a hand. There can be no assurance given especially if it means less work for more people. Unless it means general prosperity and not simply unemployment insurance plus higher profits, no assurance can be given. Neither the unions nor businessmen are going to place themselves at the mercy of unplanned inaction such as we have today. We feel the government is elected by the

people. It is the only democratic agency but it cannot play any part in electing union and business leaders.
Therefore we believe that the government has a responsibility to take hold of and take a hand in the economic affairs of this nation. We believe that the rights of the minority must be guarded and the rights of property must be respected, but we also believe that the rights of the majority deserve some respect and that the rights of the consumer and those people who are in distress, those who are aged or sick, must be respected.
The third1 program is also associated with trade. A few articles appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail some weeks ago which indicated that Canada is going to find it harder and harder to compete in trade unless she begins to merge some of her industries; unless somehow we stop the fragmentation and allow the building up of much larger units of production. This was brought out in an article by Bruce Macdonald in which he said, quoting Humphrey Style, president of the John Inglis Co. Ltd.:
It seems to me that part of our national policy should be to encourage mergers into larger units to get the cost advantages from greater volume of production and distribution.
It may be that to achieve this greater degree of integration, while at the same time protecting the interests of the public in assuring them that the resultant cost advantages are passed on to them, some degree of modification of our existing anticombines legislation and its implementation must be made.
Mr. David Henry, director of the combines investigation branch of the Department of Justice, substantiated this view in saying:
In considering the implications of any particular merger the director is acting under the same disability that faces legal and economic advisers of industries planning to merge, namely that there is as yet very little jurisprudence that can serve as a guide as to how courts will view the legislation in light of particular circumstances.
So we are faced with the problem of having to plan great mergers, but how can this be done unless we do it within the pattern of a planned economy? How can we be sure that these mergers that we may have to allow to be formed, if we are going to compete for markets, will not mean monopoly prices, higher profits and once again appalling unemployment, unless there is some pattern of social justice in all the democratic planning with which this third program is concerned?
I read the speech of the hon. member for Niagara Falls and I am rather disappointed that the Liberal party is not going to support the amendment to the amendment proposed by this group. We in this group are rather surprised and sorry that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) is not here to
Alleged Lack of Economic Growth see this, because this amendment is taken directly from the program of the New Democratic party which was partly written by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I think he would be rather concerned to find that his political party is not accepting this particular amendment to the amendment proposed by the New Democratic group in this house.
I wish the Liberal party could accept this amendment because I am afraid that planning without such an amendment and without its emphasis will become a kind of research activity. It can too often become a tossing around of the ball. But surely decisions must be made somewhere, and the proper people to make the decisions are those who are elected democratically to make them. As it is now, of course, these decisions are made by stockholders, and rightly so. They are made on the basis of the best profits that can be secured for the stockholders-and why not? This is their very frame of preference; this is what they should properly base their decisions upon. But we suggest it is too narrow a frame of preference and that the needs of the nation may well be not the needs of Imperial Oil or Abitibi pulp and paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is now six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Walter George Pitman: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was indicating that from the point of view of the New Democratic party, to achieve the kind of economic growth which is suggested in the amendment and subamendment it is paramount that some degree of responsibility be accepted by the federal government. I attempted to point out that there are several significant problems confronting the Canadian people today. These are problems of major proportions which must be dealt with within the near future or perhaps the opportunity to deal with them will pass.
The first problem is that of new trade competition, the competition provided by countries the governments of which have accepted a higher degree of responsibility and initiative and insisted on a full employment society.
The second problem is that of productivity. We face competition from nations which have recently engaged in a tooling up in industry on a large scale and in a modem way. We

Alleged Lack of Economic Growth cannot face this problem of productivity unless management, labour and indeed agriculture can feel they, too, will share in the benefits of productivity. Perhaps the farmer more than any other individual has already experienced disadvantages from productivity. He was told all he had to do was increase his production and his life would be one of considerable prosperity. As it turned out, of course, this was not true. His prices went down, his income continued to decline. Fewer and fewer are being supported in the agricultural segment of our economy as the years go by.
The third problem is that of larger productive units. The manufacturing industry across the nation is realizing that as this competition becomes more severe we will have to reorganize our economy into larger productive units. The small secondary industry may very well become somewhat irrelevant in the kind of trading competition we will have to face in certain areas of our secondary manufacturing. If this type of merger takes place without those affected feeling that it is taking place within the pattern of a plan, I am afraid this will be done only with the opposition of either management or labour because neither will have the assurance that they will benefit from the advantage of these large units.
The fourth problem upon which I wish to touch is that of retraining and education. We have really just begun to scratch the surface of the problem of retraining our people. We have come to the conclusion that we have tragically failed the youth of our nation over the past fifteen years. We have been supplying our need for skilled workers from immigration sources, bringing in people to do the jobs for which we should have been training our own people. We have made a start in this area but surely it is only a start. Unless we make some important changes in our economy I do not believe we can achieve the kind of dynamic results which must take place if we are to provide our younger people with the educational goals they require.
The European common market is not only planning economically but it is planning educationally. It is providing opportunities for young people to move from nation to nation. It is arranging for the acceptance of credentials of training between nations. This is the situation with which we have to compete. People will be able to take their skills back and forth among the nations. It is more than economic planning with which we must deal.
Our young people are very discerning in this area. You do not have to spell it out to them that we do not have any plan or national goal. They feel we are a society of drift rather than a society of decision. As

a result too many of our young people have no goals and drop out when it seems convenient, perhaps through discouragement. As I say, we have made a start in this area of providing training but much remains to be done.
In the last 12 months we have experienced less immigration to Canada than emigration from this country. Some 70,000 persons came to Canada and approximately 73,000 or more went out. It is tragic to note that many who are leaving are among those who have received training in skills in Canada. This outflow must be stopped. It can be done only through establishing and achieving national goals and objectives.
Many speakers on the government side have appropriately shown enthusiasm about the pick-up in our economy. In 1962 we see an increase in our gross national product. We have made some advances in the area of trade. But I suggest this is the time we need planning the most. Now that the economy shows an upward trend we must ensure that it does not fall, with the disastrous results we have witnessed in the past. It will be of no value if this climb in the economy should be followed by a sharp decline within three or four years.
In the past we have turned to scapegoats. We have blamed labour for wages. We have blamed the Liberals for what they did prior to 1957. We may begin to blame the European common market. Perhaps in the future we may blame the communist bloc. But we cannot continue to find scapegoats. The government must accept the inevitable responsibility of the challenges of this era. We must not allow this to be simply a cancerous affluence followed by a disastrous depression. Only in a planned economy can we create taxation policies which will encourage and assist an ordered growth. Only then can we direct investment, both private and public, into those areas that will provide the kind of full employment which the Canadian people have a right to expect and indeed will expect in the next decade.
Our economy is enjoying an upswing but I suggest this is the time to discipline ourselves and provide the opportunities presented by the twentieth century, which we have claimed as our own. One of my favourite historians is Arnold Toynbee. His thesis is, of course, that every civilization rises and falls. He might bring this thesis into the area of the nation state. Every nation faces certain challenges. If it overcomes those challenges, it continues to rise, to prosper and to provide something meaningful within western civilization. If it fails to meet those challenges, then indeed it has no right to expect anything else but a falling down in its prosperity and influence throughout the world.

We in Canada face many ills. There is still squalor in our major cities. There is still ignorance. It is not illiteracy but rather an inability to meet the challenges of the technological age. There is still unemployment, as we have seen even in this winter of upswing. There are still people who are not being cared for properly and who are in sickness and in want. These are the challenges of the 20th century and of the 20th century nation state.
I think the realities are just as stark for the nation state as they are for civilization. With the knowledge we have in this world of science and technology, with our ability to send a man around the world in space and to produce machines which can carry out production for us, we have the opportunity of making a nation worthy of all our hopes while on the other hand our technology and our machines can bring tremendous unhappiness. This is the challenge. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment to the amendment which we in the New Democratic party have proposed can give in the national government the planning and the policies which can bring about the affluence and progress which all Canadians desire.


Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have only two minutes before the vote takes place. However, I should like to comment for a moment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman). May I say that I have never heard a more negative approach to sound policies which he has distorted for the past 40 minutes. It seems that the C.C.F.-New Democratic party is full of political theorists without solutions. They want to redirect social and private capital. I ask them how they intend to do that. Do they intend to nationalize the steel industry, the trust companies and the insurance companies? How do they intend to rectify their position with regard to the redirection of this capital? I am sorry that I have not more time at my disposal, Mr. Speaker. I should like to comment on only one thing as far as the Liberals are concerned. I have in my hand a quotation taken from the Ottawa Journal and it reads as follows:
It is no empty boast of the government party that in most areas under federal jurisdiction they have done more in four years than the Liberals did in 22.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 8.15 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 4(d) of standing order 56, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment now before the house.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to
the amendment lost. The question is now on	
the amendment	to the main motion. Those
in favour of	the amendment will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please
say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: ; In my opinion the nays
have it.	
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The house *	divided on the amendment
(Miss LaMarsh)	which was negatived on the
following division:	
	YEAS
	Messrs.
Benidickson	Lessard
Boivin	Loiselle
Boulanger	Mcllraith
Bourget	McMillan
Brassard (Lapointe) Martin (Essex East)	
Caron	Martin (Timmins)
Carter	Matheson
Clermont	Meunier
Crestohl	Nixon
Denis	Peters
Dumas	Pickersgill
Eudes	Pitman
Fisher	Regier
Forgie	Richard (Ottawa East)
Garland	Richard (St. Maurice-
Godin	Lafleche)
Hellyer	Robichaud
Herridge	Tardif
Howard	Tucker
Leduc	Winch-39.
	NAYS
	Messrs.
Aiken	Baldwin ^
Aitken, Miss	Barrington
Allard	Bell (Carleton)
Balcer	Bell (Saint John-Albert)

Belzile	Macdonald, Mrs.
Bigg	MacEwan
Bourbonnais	MacLean (Queens)
Brassard (Chicoutimi)	MacLean (Winnipeg
Browne (St. John's West)	North Centre)
Cadieu	MacRae
Campbell	McBain
(Lambton-Kent)	McCleave
Campbell (Stormont)	McDonald
Cardiff	(Hamilton South)
Casselman, Mrs.	McFarlane
Cathers	McGee
Chambers	McGrath
Charlton	McGregor
Chatterton	McIntosh
Churchill	McLennan
Clancy	McPhillips
Coates	McQuillan
Cooper	Mandziuk
Creaghan	Martini
Crouse	Matthews
Deschambault	Montgomery
Diefenbaker	More
Dinsdale	Morissette
Dorion	Morris
Drouin	Morton
Drysdale	Muir (Lisgar)
Dubois	Nasserden
English	Nesbitt
Fairclough, Mrs.	Nielsen
Fairfield	Nowlan
Fane	Nugent
Fleming (Eglinton)	O'Hurley
Flemming (Royal)	Pallett
Flynn	Parizeau
Frechette	Pascoe
Fulton	Paul
Grafftey	Pigeon
Green	Pugh
Hales	Rapp
Halpenny	Regnier
Hamilton (Notre Dame	Ricard
de Grace)	Robinson
Harkness	Rowe
Henderson	Sevigny
Hicks	Slogan
Hodgson	Small
Horner (Acadia)	Smith (Lincoln)
Homer (Jasper-Edson)	Smith (Simcoe North)
Horner (The Battlefords)	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Howe	Southam
Johnson	Spencer
Jones	Starr
Jung	Stefanson
Keays	Taylor
Kennedy	Thrasher
Knowles	Tremblay
Korchinski	Valade
Kucherepa	Walker
Lahaye	Webster
Lambert	Weichel
LaRue	White
Latour	Winkler
Lennard Letoumeau	Wratten-133.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss a grievance. My grievance is provoked by a procedure that was followed by a minister in this house which I consider is an invasion of the rights of parliament and an abuse of authority which reflects

on the very basis of our method of enacting laws in this House of Commons. I refer to the statement on immigration made to the house by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) shortly after this house opened, the effect of which is to make new immigration laws which the elected representatives of the people have had no opportunity to debate.
I find no precedent for a government dealing so evasively with such a serious matter when a different course had been promised, not only to parliament but indeed to the people of Canada. The production of a new set of immigration regulations instead of a revision of the Immigration Act is, I consider, an affront to the rights of parliament, to the press of Canada and indeed to the people of the entire country. It is nothing more in my judgment, than an attempt to divert the country's attention, and a poor demonstration of a lack of courage to face an issue. It is a move, a clumsy move at that, to block a parliamentary debate on the immigration laws of this country.
The chronological history of events of this whole manoeuvre shows that this government and the minister on at least nine different occasions clearly stated a promise to revise the Immigration Act. Not once was anything said about revising or altering the regulations themselves. I should like to refer to only two brief quotations in this regard. One appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of August 11, 1961 and is as follows:
Canada's new blueprint for immigration, four years in preparation, will make its debut in parliament next month.
A government spokesman said Thursday it is "absolutely sure" that the new Immigration Act will go before the Commons shortly after it reconvenes September 7. It had been forecast in the speech from the throne that opened parliament in November, 1960.
The document has been promised by the Conservatives since before they came to power in June, 1957 but delay after delay has kept it from being introduced.
The second quotation is from the Toronto Globe and Mail of November 2, 1961, and is as follows:
The final draft of Canada's revised Immigration Act, in the government's oven for many months, is now being considered by the cabinet. Full approval is expected soon and the revised act should be before parliament at the next session. Completion of the final draft marks the end of months of discussion and argument within the cabinet and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Revisions to the act were forecast in the speech from the throne a year ago, but they were not forthcoming.
The Prime Minister has himself on a number of occasions promised that the act would be revised. I want to put on the record one of these direct statements. I quote from the Toronto Star of May 15, 1961, which quotes
Alleged Abuse of Immigration Regulations from the Prime Minister's speech at Massey hall in April, 1957. This is the brief quotation:
"We will overhaul the act's administration to ensure that humanity will be considered and put an end to the bureaucratic interpretations which keep out from Canada many potentially good citizens", said Mr. Diefenbaker, at Massey Hall in April, 1957-
The minister herself very definitely told the house that she would make available a draft of her new legislation to interested groups before it was formally presented to parliament. I quote her own words:
I do not want to bring in a half-baked piece of legislation which will not stand the test of time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member permit me to interrupt him. I have been waiting, expecting that hon. members would settle down. There has been ample time. I trust that they will moderate their conversations so that the hon. member who has the floor can have the usual courteous hearing.


Mr. McGee:: On a point of order, before the hon. member resumes; surely in recent years there has never been a more flagrant example of an hon. member reading each and every word of his speech, which has obviously been written by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member on the point of order.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not reading the speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Leon David Crestohl: If hon. members would like to look at my notes, they may. I am going to discuss a question of procedure which touches the very basis of our system of legislation, and that is the conflict-


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Is that the point of order you are discussing?


Leon David Crestohl: Yes. It is interesting to hear these intellectual giants interrupting. It is very interesting to observe that their intellectual interruptions are somewhat exaggerated when you attempt to cram them into a pygmy peanut shell.


An hon. Member:: Careful; it is all going down in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the point of order which has been taken has become a novel one, having regard to the amount of similar delivery of speeches that went on in the debate on the speech from the throne. I am sure the hon. member who has the floor will follow the customary practice of the house.
1328	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Alleged Abuse of Immigration Regulations


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before he does, perhaps I might be permitted, in view of the very-


An hon. Member:: Here comes the specialist.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the very flattering insinuation, or direct statement, perhaps I should say, of the hon. member for York-Scarborough that he flatters me too much.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, when I am reading quotations-and I have read several-I cannot memorize them, and I did not memorize them. If the hon. member who is so fluent in his speech deliveries, who never refers to notes and who is the one-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member proceed with his address.


Leon David Crestohl: After all these promises, after all the manoeuvring engaged in, after all the tactics to which the minister resorted, after protesting that she was hesitant about bringing in a half-baked measure, what did the house finally get? What did the hon.# lady finally bring in? I suggest she did not bring in even a half-baked measure. She brought in no measure at all. Apparently she had a frightful time with her oven. It is obvious to me and certainly it is abundantly clear to the country that the minister had no fire under the oven in which her measure was to have been baked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Leon David Crestohl: It is interesting to observe who is laughing.


An hon. Member:: Look around you.


Leon David Crestohl: Hon. members opposite do not realize-


Mr. Peters:: Most of the laughter comes from representatives of Toronto ridings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt again but if hon. members wish to interrupt they should remind themselves that they should rise uncovered and only one may interrupt at a time. I hope I shall not have to remind hon. members again.


Grant Campbell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Are salacious comments allowed in this house?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but I did not hear the hon. member's point of order.


Grant Campbell: I asked whether salacious comments are allowed in this house. It occurs to me they are out of order.


Leon David Crestohl: May I point out that perhaps these interruptions represent an attempt to deprive me of some of the time at my disposal

to discuss a matter which I consider to be of considerable importance. If these facts hurt hon. members of the government, I can appreciate why they would interrupt. As a matter of fact when hon. gentlemen opposite interrupt I am confident that my remarks are hitting home and making them feel uncomfortable.
I submit that the minister did not bring a half-baked measure before the house: I think it is a completely raw measure. It represents a raw deal not only to the house but to the country.
The minister did not introduce the piece of legislation promised by herself and the Prime Minister. She brought forward immigration laws which were not passed by parliament. These are purely and simply immigration laws passed by the cabinet. The representatives of the people have not had an opportunity to express an opinion on those laws, those regulations which are now considered to be the laws of this country. She failed to submit those regulations to interested groups as she promised she would. But, of course, that was only another promise. What is one broken promise more or less to members of the government?
I point out that this is legislation by ministerial regulations. If you care to think back in history, that is the way dictators operated. That is the way this government is operating. That is not a good method to be followed by the government of any country, particularly a democratic country. There is nothing more undemocratic than to make laws by ministerial regulation without giving the elected representatives of the people an opportunity of discussing them. A frightful danger of delegating authority is that it can lead to the making of laws under the guise of regulations.
On a previous occasion I complained as I complain now that the authority given in a parliamentary statute to make regulations has unfortunately degenerated to the point where officials and bureaucrats are carrying things a little too far.


John Cameron Pallett: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he inform the house when the power to pass these regulations was included in the act? Was this not done under a Liberal administration?


Leon David Crestohl: I could not tell the hon. gentleman when it was done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Leon David Crestohl: Just a moment. When an hon. member asks a question I expect that he and those who support his party will have the patience and courtesy to listen to the reply. I do not know when it was done. I am not

attempting to conceal when it was done. Regardless of when it was done, that does not make it right, unless hon. members opposite are prepared now to make the statement that everything the Liberal administration did was right. If they make that statement, then I would go along with it; but I do not take the position that if it was done by a Liberal government it is necessarily right.
I am raising a grievance. The system of delegating the authority to make regulations under the statutes is a good thing. Regulations have to be made for administrative purposes. But an abuse occurs when that authority is converted into the making of laws.
I have no quarrel with any statute that gives authority to a minister or commission to make regulations. That is the language of the statutes. The making of regulations is appropriate, proper and necessary for various branches of government. But an abuse takes place when laws are enacted under the guise of regulations. That is going too far.
Lord Hewart, a chief justice of England, has written and spoken extensively on this form of making laws by bureaucratic operation. Hon. members will recall the quotation from the Prime Minister's speech at Massey hall in which he said he would stop this form of bureaucratic law making. I have merely paraphrased his comment. He made reference to "bureaucratic" practices.
Lord Hewart calls this form of law making by bureaucratic operation the "new despotism". I sincerely commend Lord Hewart's book to all members of the house. His Lordship points out that the authority given to statutory bodies and government departments to make laws by regulation places government departments above and beyond the sovereignty of parliament itself, and frequently even beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.
What do we see? This delegation of authority is very dangerous. The Prime Minister himself has recognized the danger. On one occasion he spoke about appointing a committee or commission to review all our statutes and the attendant regulations enacted thereunder and determine whether the regulations were abusive and inconsistent with the bill of rights, an infringement on the rights and duties of parliament itself. That is a statement which the Prime Minister made or one to that effect. It was quite a proper statement and one becoming a prime minister, especially at a time when we were discussing the bill of rights. Unfortunately, however, no such commission has been appointed or set up. I simply say that was perhaps just another promise which the Prime Minister
Alleged Abuse of Immigration Regulations made and which I still hope he will fulfil. I consider the matter to be an extremely important one which is basic to our whole system of government and to our system of making laws, namely that there should be no such abuse by statutory bodies making laws instead of regulations.
As I said, if such a commission is ever formed, I feel that the greatest offender will be found to have been the regulations made under the Immigration Act. On another occasion I will point out many basic errors, contradictions and inconsistencies in the regulations themselves and even, to a large extent, their complete futility. What the minister has so far done by her surprising and astounding performance is to lead the house, the press, the country and future immigrants down the proverbial garden path. Under the guise of regulations she virtually shoved down the throat of parliament without debate, as a & fait accompli, a new set of immigration laws. She promised a revision of the act, but that was only another promise.
I should like to point out that a revision of the act would make possible debate, study by a committee, submissions by interested parties, analysis, discussion and amendments so that in the final analysis, out of all this consideration which is generally given to a piece of legislation in this house could come a better measure. I should like to feel that had these regulations which the minister brought into the house been given to a committee and to the house for debate, whoever it was who fashioned those regulations might have received enough suggestions, good or bad, to produce-to use the minister's language-a better seasoned measure or a better seasoned product, in her desire to produce for the country something that was good, properly cooked and digestible.
I feel that this whole operation over the past four years by the government and by the minister, this build-up of a promise to revise-"Later", "not quite ready", "I want to have the bill ready and distributed to interested parties to study"-was nothing but a hoax. All that did not happen. Nothing like that was done. The entire build-up to me has the air of a huge hoax on the country and on parliament. I say that is a genuine grievance. I feel that it is the result of a studied plan by the minister and by the government to string the country along and then to come and throw into the records a set of immigration laws in the guise of immigration regulations. I say that Canadians do not like to be treated in that way. I say that Canadians will resent being treated in that way. If the government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had
1330	HOUSE OF
Alleged Abuse of Immigration Regulations the courage to make this promise that they would revise the act, they should have gone along with the revision properly and should not have slipped into the records in this devious or indirect way a series of immigration laws. 1 repeat that Canadians do not like to be treated in that way. They resent such treatment and they will show their resentment at the first opportunity given to them.


Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the grievance that is before the house at this moment, particularly as I represent a constituency composed of a great many people who have recently come to Canada. I know they would wish me to say on their behalf how much they disagree with the words which have just been uttered by the hon. member of the Liberal party. He said the Conservatives promised to revise the Immigration Act.


Leon David Crestohl: Did they not do so?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course they did so.


William Murray Smith: I am not concerned with that matter. I am concerned, as are the people who wanted to come to Canada, with the previous 22 years when revision of the act was wanted by these people who could not get into Canada then but who got into Canada under a Conservative government.
I am also concerned, Mr. Speaker, with the plaque that is hanging on the walls of this parliament building. Perhaps the hon. member has not seen it. Perhaps he will go and look at it some day. It is a plaque which was donated to the government of this country, the first one to accept tubercular refugees under the United Nations program. Has the hon. member seen it? I will show him where it is in the morning, Mr. Speaker.
It is wonderful to hear these people in the opposition talking about the immigration regulations and laws of this country. What do they know about the immigrants who have come to this country?


John Whitney Pickersgill: They practically all came here when the Liberal government was in power.


William Murray Smith: Certainly they did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just look at the statistics.


William Murray Smith: They came when there was in power a government which had a policy of Canadian babies first, and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) can substantiate that statement: Canadian babies first.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We let the immigrants in. You have kept them out.


An hon. Member:: Obviously he was the youngest one in his family.


William Murray Smith: It is quite
obvious that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate might have been writing speeches in the last few days. He might have written this one. I do not know. However, I and the new Canadians in my constituency know of the policy under the previous government. 1 will point out two facts. This Conservative government was the first government of this country to recognize the refugee problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement is not correct.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not correct.
Mr. Pallet!: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate can make his own speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who admitted the Hungarians?


William Murray Smith: My hon. friend can talk about the Hungarians on his own time. However, I think that also happened after 1957.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was the minister.


William Murray Smith: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was also the advocate of Canadian babies first.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat for one minute? If objection is taken to what is being said, there will be an opportunity to make a correction or explanation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I apologize to the hon.
gentleman, sir.
Mr. Pallet!: And to the house as a whole.


William Murray Smith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the house that in my constituency I have a great many people who have recently come to Canada. They came here under various circumstances. Some of them came here under the refugee program instituted by this government with respect to people with tuberculosis in the refugee camps. They came here because they believe in democracy, because they believe in our way of life. They did not come here because of the policies put forward by our predecessors in office. They wanted an opportunity to be equal; they did not want to be considered inferior.


Mr. Fisher:: On a point of order, Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Port Arthur is rising on a point of order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It seemed to me that the grievance of the hon. member for Cartier related to the introduction of regulations to change immigration policy. There are a number of us who wish to speak on this matter, and I would put it to you, sir, that the hon. member who is speaking has not been directing his remarks to the specific grievance.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should hear the hon. member who has the floor on the point of order.


William Murray Smith: Mr. Speaker, in my view the grievance that was introduced covered a wide field. I do not think it was necessarily confined to immigration regulations but rather covered the whole field of immigration into Canada. I think there were statements made by the member who raised the grievance that had nothing to do with the regulations at all. I will await your ruling.


Frank Charles McGee: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, at least at one point in the remarks of the hon. member for Cartier it was clear that he was directing his criticism at the activities of the former minister of citizenship and immigration, the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, particularly when he was referring to the principle of incorporating regulations as part of a statute. Unless I greatly misunderstood the hon. member, that was his point. As the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate was responsible as the former minister of citizenship and immigration for such regulations being imposed, my impression was that at least part of the criticism of the hon. member for Cartier was directed at the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Leon David Crestohl: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not necessary to hear the hon. member. Having followed the hon. member for Cartier through his entire speech, I understood him to say that he was not attempting to deal with the content of the law but that his grievance related to the method of introducing immigration law by regulation rather than by statute, and I think that the comments of other members should be limited to the grievance as it was initiated.


William Murray Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that in my estimation and that of a great many members of this house the official opposition is not in
Alleged Abuse of Immigration Regulations favour of the change in the regulations. They want to restrict immigration into Canada as it was restricted under the former government. We all know that was detrimental to those people who wanted to come to this country, to live in a democracy under a government freely and democratically chosen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to exercise the right that you accorded to me to make a factual correction in the statement made by the hon. gentleman. The hon. member stated that this government was the first government that had paid any attention to the refugee problem or had admitted refugees. That statement is completely and utterly incorrect. In the years before the war the government of Mr. Mackenzie King undertook to admit refugees. After the war there was a very large refugee program and, as the hon. member has said, I was brought into this personally.


Henry Frank Jones: May I speak to the point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can raise a point of order. I was just about to say myself that the hon. member is entitled to make an explanation where he has been misinterpreted, but I think he has probably gone a bit beyond that when he endeavours to correct a factual error in the speech unless it is an interpretation that relates to the member concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does, sir.


Henry Frank Jones: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see the hon. member for Saskatoon.


Henry Frank Jones: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no point of order.


Henry Frank Jones: -the hon. member for Winnipeg North clearly related his remarks to the refugee problem in relation to tuberculosis. Everybody knows that refugees have come to this country under every government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises as a point of order another controversial issue of fact. I trust the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate has made his explanation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I have not, sir. That was the precise point I was coming to when Your Honour interrupted me. I was going to say that at the time the government in which I was a minister decided to admit the Hungarian refugees we admitted those with tuberculosis as well as those without.


Mr. Flynn:: It is a question of fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a question of fact and the facts are well known.

Mr. 1332	HOUSE OF
Alleged Abuse of Immigration Regulations


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the house who over the years has had to deal with a vast number of immigration cases and in whose riding are thousands of new citizens I am particularly interested in the grievances raised by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl). That grievance has to do with important changes in immigration policy being brought in by regulation and not through the medium of legislation.
The hon. member for Cartier pointed out that in his view a great number of Canadians were and are very much disturbed by this situation and the procedure followed, and I believe he is correct in that statement. In my opinion the matter was very properly put by Michael Barkway in an article in the Ottawa Citizen of February 5. Because his words are concise and go to the root of the grievance I should like to quote a few sentences. He said in part:
The greatest change in immigration policy since Mackenzie King announced the resumption of immigration in 1947 has gone into effect without approval or even debate in parliament. The essence of it is to give immigration officials greater responsibility and more individual discretion than they have ever had before-
The reason why such a fundamental change of policy could be made without parliament's approval is that the real control over immigration has always been at the cabinet's discretion. The Immigration Act in practice leaves the government free to do almost anything it wants.
In those words I think we have the crux of the situation, and the correctness of that view was very definitely expressed in the words of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when she made a statement on January 19 of this year. In opening her statement on the change in immigration policy by regulation the minister put the matter in these words:
The new regulations are in two parts, the first of which has been formally approved by the governor in council as P.C. 1962-86 of January 18, 1962, while the second part requires only the approval of the minister under section 62 of the Immigration Act. These new regulations consolidate, revise and replace the various regulations passed in previous years, including those issued under previous ministerial authority.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like particularly to draw the attention of the house to the next sentence in the minister's statement.
Part I of the new regulations deals with such important questions as visa requirements, admissible classes, the responsibility of transportation companies and most of the major administrative and policy matters dealt with in the present regulations.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a fair assumption to make from the words of the minister, uttered on January 19, that by regulation and by regulation only, will the major
[Mr. Pickersgill.l

administrative and policy matters in relation to immigration be decided. These matters will not be decided by the people of Canada through their representatives in parliament, but will be decided by the minister in charge at the time or by the cabinet. I say, sir, that the hon. member for Cartier has a rightful grievance because the particular principle involved here is whether we, in this country, in matters of such importance as immigration, will be governed by legislation or by regulation. In other words, is the major policy going to be laid down by order in council or by legislation enacted by the representatives of the people? Are we going to have policy and administration by order in council?
This is a subject, sir, upon which a great deal has been said in the past, but apparently it has to be said again. The meaning of democracy is rule by parliament so far as is humanly possible, not rule by order in council. We heard from the member for Cartier and the speaker who followed something of what the present administration has done through regulation, and something of what the previous administration did or did not do. One reason we have this situation is rule by order in council in the field of policy rather than through legislation. Perhaps, sir, I could just give one example that comes to my mind because the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned the refugees. I seem to remember some rather big headlines this hon. member got when he occupied the position of minister of citizenship and immigration at the time of the Palestinian refugee problem. The former minister, on behalf of Canada said, because Canada was interested in these one million Palestinian refugees, that Canada would be glad to make a contribution by having some of these people. However, he laid down two regulations they had to meet. They had to be able to speak either English or French and they had to have a skill. Although the principle was sound, to the best of my knowledge there were not any of these refugees who came to Canada, because they could not meet the regulations. This was one regulation that was laid down.
When the minister made her statement on January 19 she referred to the order in council of January 18 establishing the new regulations. If you examine them carefully, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe you will find very much difference compared with the previous regulations as to who may come in, how they may come in and the basis upon which they may come in. We have gone too far by regulation instead of legislation, and it is now beyond the power of the administration to handle appeal matters and correct grave injustices. It is as a result of this that

we have run into all these complaints, all of these disputes, all of these unhappy things that have developed in Canada and which have been discussed outside of Canada.
I feel, sir, it is because of this attitude of cabinet or ministerial control on such important matters that we have had situations such as the disgraceful manner in which the Chinese problem was handled when we asked that group to be stool pigeons-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member is now going beyond the scope of the subject under discussion.


Harold Edward Winch: I understood that was done by regulation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not free to discuss everything that has been done by regulation. It is a very simple and neat point, namely that this change in the law was brought about by regulation rather than by statute.


Harold Edward Winch: Of course, I always bow to your views in matters of this nature, Mr. Speaker. I come back to whether or not it is proper to establish by regulation what should be the will of the people with regard to immigration policy. We in this group feel very strongly that when it comes to matters of policy, whether it is immigration or anything else, that is something which, in the ultimate, should be the subject of legislation and not regulation. This is particularly true when we consider that for months, even years, we were told there were going to be changes in the Immigration Act itself. We were told for years that not only the regulations but the legislation were under review.
All of us, sir, were definitely of the opinion that there were going to be major changes made by the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, but by legislation. It is understandable, therefore, that we in the house, and the people of Canada as a whole, fail to understand this important announcement of January 19 conveying information about new laws in connection with immigration. These matters were not going to be referred to parliament, because they had already been decided on the previous day by the cabinet. The new law had been enacted by order in council. I suppose, sir, we should have been most happy at the courtesy and kindness of the government in informing us the day after of the action which they had taken. I say there is a very important principle involved here, and that is rule by law or rule by regulation; rule by the people's will by legislation or rule by order in council.
This is a matter upon which one could speak for a long time. However, I am aware of the fact the minister desires to make a
Alleged, Abuse of Immigration Regulations contribution to this debate, and it is only right and just that I should leave some time available for her. I think I have made the point clear so far as this group is concerned. We believe in parliamentary democracy and not cabinet dictatorship.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the previous three speakers, may I first of all say a word with regard to refugees. I do not believe that either this government or the previous government can lay claim to being superior to each other in the matter of the treatment of refugees. Canada has an excellent record in this field, quite the best of any country in the world.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I, as the present minister, am very proud of it, and I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is proud of it as the previous minister. When I occasionally see articles referring to the remarkable record of other countries in the alleviation of distress among refugees I am sometimes forced to smile at the naivete of the persons who write these articles and who speak on the subject from public platforms when in actual fact they haven't a clue what they are talking about.
Canada has taken in a great many refugees on a great many occasions. I was in this house at the time the former minister made his announcement with respect to Hungarian refugees, and I know he will agree with me that there was not a dissenting voice here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We supported the proposal to bring these unfortunate people to Canada and to do what we could to rehabilitate them. I may say that their record here has been an excellent one. I am also personally proud of the record that has been established by the tubercular refugees who came to Canada. I am proud of the part that the various provinces took in caring for these people, in cooperating with the federal authorities in seeing that they should have proper treatment and that their families could be cared for until the breadwinner, if it were he, or the person who was afflicted, was able once more to take his or her place within the family circle.
Having said that I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the allegations- if I may call them that-which have been made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl). I was intrigued by his introduction of the subject, wherein he talked about the various promises that had been made, and then quoted from two newspapers. If I can

Alleged Abuse of Immigration Regulations read my shorthand notes-I used to write shorthand but I am afraid I am a little rusty- the first article he read I believe referred to a quotation from the Ottawa Citizen. The second article, without identifying any person, did not go so far as to say that information had been gained from any official government source, but just speculated there would shortly be forthcoming a revised act.
I believe I made it clear during the last few months that what would be brought forward would probably not be a new act because * we ran into difficulties in attempting to revise the act. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) can appreciate, it is much easier to be more restrictive in drawing legislation than it is to be more flexible, and that was partially the problem which confronted us. Anyway, the hon. member for Cartier said I had intended to wait until I could bring in not just a piece of legislation, not just a half-baked piece of legislation. That is quite correct and that is still my intention. I might say he would have been better advised to follow the same example in his speech.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: 
Leon David Crestohl: May I ask the hon. minister a question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have only a few minutes and I would prefer to finish.
I might ask the question: since when did a Liberal government submit regulations for any legislation to parliament for debate? I cannot recall regulations being submitted to parliament for debate either under this or any other legislation. The regulations are made according to the authority given to the governor in council under the required legislation, and under the governor in council the government of the day takes responsibility for drawing up those regulations and presenting them to parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But the Prime Minister promised to change all that.


An hon. Member:: Another interruption.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As a matter of fact I am sure that hon. members of the house will realize, as I have, that apparently both opposition parties were well aware that this subject was to be raised. I was not myself, of course, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must speak more or less from the few notes I have been able to make while listening to this criticism.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Your speech is better than his.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But if my memory serves me well, the former government declared in a speech from the throne in 1951 that it

Alleged Abuse of Immigration Regulations
would revise the Immigration Act. Nothing was done. Again, in 1952 they repeated this intention-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was revised.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -and that year they finally did bring in a revised act; but that act, although passed, was not proclaimed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The following year nothing was said about it, but it eventually was proclaimed and became law, I think late in 1953; again, if my memory serves me well, it was September. That act was brought in. It is true that it was presented to this house for consideration; but when was it presented? It was presented in the dying days of a session and crammed through this house, with little or no time provided to give proper consideration to an extensive act which contained some 74 clauses. Now criticism is being levelled at a government which is attempting in an orderly fashion to bring in legislation affecting people who desire to enter Canada, and affecting their relatives and friends who are in this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing done in four and a half years.
Mr. Pallet!: Tell us about 1919 and hospital insurance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the record.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has the floor.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, these interruptions do not bother me at all; in fact, I find them rather amusing. I do not wonder that hon. members in the opposition benches become a little irked at their ineffectual criticism of legislation brought down by this government, because they cannot help but think back to those long years of inactivity when they sat on this side of the house; and now, of course, every month seems like a year to them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And to the public.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It was said by the hon. member for Cartier that the people of this country had been led up the garden path. I believe those were the words he used. Mr. Speaker, contrary to his belief, the suggestions which came to my desk from many bodies were carefully considered in the drafting of these regulations. These suggestions came from church groups, religious groups, social service bodies, immigrant aid societies and from some of the hon. member's own close friends. He
does not like the regulations. I wonder why, because some of his colleagues outside this house like them. I have had letters to that effect-quite a number of them. I suggest the reason the hon. member does not like them is because they please people too well.
I have no intention of allowing myself to be stampeded into bringing in legislation prematurely, regardless of the howls from the opposition benches. They can shout their heads off from now till doomsday, I will bring in my legislation when I am ready to bring it in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I might say this. I have been the minister of this department now for something less than four years and I have been engaged in the study of a revision of this act for something approaching two years. I have received representations from various groups. Those representations were not that this government should hurry and bring in a new act, but quite the reverse: the representations from these groups were, "Go slowly. Do not be too quick in this matter. Give us a chance to talk to you about it". That we have done.
I should have liked to bring in a new act complete with regulations at one time, but it became evident very soon in our study of the act that this was probably not a wise course. Therefore we took the alternative, and we have brought in regulations, which I submit to this house are workable, flexible and will permit the entry of many persons who were heretofore denied entry to Canada.
I think it was in 1959-I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I will not be quoted on this as a statement of fact, because I am depending on my memory-that we admitted some 7,000 persons to this country by order in council because they did not qualify for entry under the old act or the old regulations. This is a rather ridiculous situation when there are so many persons who are welcome to Canada by reason of their peculiar circumstances or qualifications but who are prohibited from entry because of the legislation which is in effect. We believe that with the new regulations we have cured that situation.
I might say that it is still my intention to consult with the various bodies who are interested-those I have mentioned, the immigrant aid societies and religious groups, who have always worked closely with the department-but before doing so we believe we should give these regulations a few months to work, to see what will happen and whether there are perhaps some flaws in them which need to be corrected.
1336	HOUSE OF
Alleged Abuse of Immigration Regulations
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), who I know has been keenly interested in immigration matters and has made representations to my department on countless occasions on behalf of various persons, has said that there is too much done by regulation and not enough by legislation. Mr. Speaker, the hon. members of this house would not want everything spelled out by legislation. Half the hon. members of this house are constantly applying to my department for the exercise of ministerial discretion with regard to cases where people would not be admissible under the regulations. If we are going to tie it down so tightly that everyone is admissible through the act, then I submit that very few people will get into this country.
We wish to give these regulations a chance to work, as I have said, and I can assure the house that I intend to proceed in an orderly fashion. I hope I will have the co-operation of members of parliament in seeing that when the act is revised it meets their wishes and the wishes of the people of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. lady takes her seat-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. lady takes her seat would she permit me to ask her a question? Is it not correct that in 1957 before the election the Prime Minister promised to revise the act and that that has not been done?


An hon. Member:: It will be.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, it may very well be, but I do not recall that he ever put a time limit on it; and if he followed the procedure of the Liberal administration he could do it any time within the next 22 years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He will not be here much longer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock it is my duty pursuant to section 4(f) of standing order 56 to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the motion before the house.
Motion (Mr. Fleming, Eglinton) agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, $1,072,000.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration Including annual
contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada and $167,500 as grants to recognized private aftercare agencies as may be approved by treasury board, $1,385,000.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, $1,916,900.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration including Canada's share of the expenses of the "resources for tomorrow" conference, $1,065,900.

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration including a grant of $2,000 to the Canadian good roads association, $11,098,000.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
1. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates and $24,000 for grants to promote industrial design, $4,481,000.
Proceedings reported.

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house leader would indicate the business for the rest of the week. I think he indicated there were to be estimates but if he could give us some indication of the order it might be helpful to hon. members.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, supplementary estimates will be taken. We will resume where we left off the other day. There is one item to be concluded in the estimates of the Department of Forestry. We will then go back to the beginning of the book of supplementary estimates and take the departments in the order in which they appear there.
After the supplementary estimates are concluded we will then take the estimates of the Department of Public Works. That will be the business, largely, for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 28, 1962