1962-01-01

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I should like to make a statement on the business of the house. I should like to commence, of course, by wishing all hon. members of the house the very best during the new year, within the limitations that hon. members opposite fully understand.
With the resumption of the sittings it is natural that hon. members would like to have a general idea of the business to come before the house. At the time of adjournment on December 20 there were 24 items of business on the order paper. Several more are being added today and will appear in Votes and Proceedings. These will include a resolution to permit the introduction of an extensive bill to amend the provisions of the Railway Act, based on recommendations made by the MacPherson royal commission. Also there will be a resolution arising out of certain recommendations of the O'Leary royal commission on publications. In due course there will be some further measures, including one to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act following the report of the Gill committee. It is evident, therefore, that the house faces a heavy volume of work during the remainder of the present session.
The house might also wish to have the view of the government-and I hope this is shared by hon. members in all parts of the house-in relation to the sequence of business. Parliament has already voted approximately ten twelfths of the estimates of the current 1962-63 fiscal year. I hope all hon. members will concur with the government's desire to have these estimates passed in their entirety as soon as possible and thus avoid any necessity for further votes of interim supply. It is no more the wish of the government than it is that of hon. members in the opposition that further fractional amounts be voted in the absence of approval of the estimates in the ordinary manner in committee of supply and by the enactment of an appropriation bill.
To date in the present session there has been one supply motion and the estimates of the following departments have already been moved into committee of supply: external affairs, agriculture, labour, transport, post office and national revenue. I propose and suggest that representatives of the three parties, who have already met, should continue to meet with the leader of the house to discuss a method of expediting consideration of the estimates for the fiscal year 1962-63.
Some time ago I gave an assurance that it was the desire of the government to introduce the budget for the 1963-64 fiscal year earlier than has been the custom in the past. The early disposal of the estimates for 1962-63 will enable the Minister of Finance to bring a budget before the house accordingly.
There have been a number of requests for a debate on external affairs. Indeed, the house has been desirous of an opportunity to consider a number of matters comprised within that department. It was also, it appears, the general desire than an early opportunity should be given for a debate on questions pertaining to national defence. The government concurs in these wishes and proposes to call the estimates of the Department of External Affairs for consideration in committee of supply on Thursday and Friday of this week. In this way the fullest opportunity for the discussion of these questions will be provided. In other words, during the course of the discussion following the opening on the subject of external affairs the whole question of defence could be considered even though the estimates in that regard would not be by motion before the house. We are prepared to make available every opportunity in this regard to the end that this most important matter, which in the last two or three weeks has received considerable attention outside the house, may receive the consideration of hon. members.
This is a very heavy program of government business awaiting the attention of the house, and it is obvious that the co-operation of all parties-I emphasize "all parties"- will be necessary if this volume of business is to be transacted within a reasonable period of time. Without going into any matter which might cause division or diversion in the house at the moment, may I say that the government is prepared to propose an extension of the hours of sitting or any other measures
27507-3-184

Business of the House
which may be acceptable to the house so as to facilitate the transaction of this business. I express the hope that the discussions among the representatives of all parties in his chamber which commenced this morning at the invitation of the government will be fruitful in devising plans to give effect to the cooperation so generally, I think, desired both in this house and outside.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I am sure all members of the house, and certainly we on this side, have listened with great interest to the Prime Minister's proposals some of which, if I understand him correctly, would represent a drastic alteration of the rules of the house. We shall, of course, take these proposals into immediate consideration from the opposition point of view, having regard to our responsibilities as an opposition both to the country and to parliament, and with a desire to co-operate with the government within the rules which protect the rights and the freedom of members of the House of Commons and the rights and freedom of the people.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we in this corner of the house are gratified that there is a prospect of getting down to the really serious business which is our responsibility in this house. However, in considering the remarks which the Prime Minister has just made I would remind him that this is not only a question of co-operation by all parties in the house; it is also a question of follow up and carry through as far as the government is concerned on what is done.
I trust that as we discuss this point amongst ourselves, as we have already heard about from our house leaders, we will have the assurance that we really are going to make progress in this outline of work which has been given to us. I assure the Prime Minister that for our part we are only too anxious to get down to the real business which is before us, and in so far as it relates to our own responsibilities I can assure him that we will co-operate in every reasonable manner. Certainly there is a great deal of business which needs to be done. We realize that before we can get down to the business of a new budget we have to clear the supply motions regarding the last budget. We must also clear the needed interim supply motion. As this relates to work that is our essential business, I hope we can really settle down to the prospects of work in the new year. We will give our wholehearted co-operation to it.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the proposals which the Prime Minister has just made were, I understand, conveyed to the whips of the various groups

at a meeting held this forenoon. No opportunity has been given to transmit those views, certainly to myself and I suspect also to the leaders of the other groups, and certainly no opportunity has been given to discuss them with the members of this house. I think that opportunity will have to be given for consideration before any decision can be made.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out, for this group that the proposals ask for a tremendous surrender by the members of this house of their rights and responsibilities. We still have five supply motions which have a place in our parliamentary system. Except for two or three departments which have been opened, we still have to bring in all the departments. The purpose of going through estimates is not only to pass sums of money but to provide members with an opportunity to question ministers regarding policies and programs, and to ascertain something about the working of each department. What we are being asked to do is to surrender all of this and to pass in a lump sum great quantities of money without any opportunity for a thorough investigation of the work of the departments. I point, for instance, to defence as a good example. It is now being suggested that we have a two day debate on defence and external affairs. Is this a substitute for a thorough opportunity in committee of supply to question the ministers concerned and get information regarding their departments? It is the kind of information we must have.
I wish to say that it seems to me to be almost completely unheard of that any members of parliament should be requested to undertake this vast surrender of their responsibilities without a much greater opportunity for discussion as between the groups than has been provided so far. We shall be glad to consider this suggestion and to discuss it with the leader of the house and on the floor of the house when this matter is before parliament itself.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall not reply to what the hon. gentleman has said, Mr. Speaker, except to say that there is no surrender. I am asking for the consent of the house.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I should now make a statement with regard to the meetings with President Kennedy and Prime Minister Macmillan. At Nassau before Christmas I had discussions with the President of the United States and Prime Minister Macmillan on the grave policy questions facing the western alliance in the political and defence

fields. I also had extensive discussions with Mr. Macmillan on the various problems of mutual interest to our two countries, and had the benefit of his views on the United States-British talks which had taken place prior to and for a short time after my arrival there.
The agreement reached by Britain and the United States at Nassau represents the first firm commitment to certain ideas concerning military policy in the western alliance which has been evolving for some time. I refer to problems mainly affecting the control of the nuclear deterrent forces of the west. The British and United States leaders agreed that in order to develop new and closer arrangements for the organization and control of the NATO defence effort, a start could be made by subscribing to NATO some of the nuclear forces already in existence, and in particular allocations from United States strategic forces, British bomber command and from tactical nuclear forces now held in Europe. This latter suggestion has relevance for Canada and in the NATO council is now the subject of intensive discussion in which Canada is fully participating. For the longer term the British prime minister and the president agreed to the furnishing of Polaris missiles to Britain to be made available for inclusion in an eventual NATO multilateral nuclear force, with a similar offer to France.
At Nassau the whole question was raised of how political and military control would be exercised in the future within the western alliance. The discussions among the western allies are bound to continue for many months to come, and I would not expect any firm decisions in the near future. The Nassau agreement aims at preserving an objective long sought by this government, namely a limitation of the further enlargement of the nuclear family in the national sense.
It was also agreed at Nassau by the two leaders in question that in addition to having a nuclear shield it was important to have a non-nuclear sword and to increase the effectiveness of conventional forces available to the alliance. It has been the policy of the Canadian government to support the build-up of conventional forces in Europe. The house will recall that on the occasion of the Berlin crisis in the autumn of 1961, Canada increased the strength of its forces in Europe. The purpose of increasing the conventional strength is to ensure that if the western alliance is ever faced with aggression from its enemies it will have sufficient strength in non-nuclear forces to avoid the disastrous choice between surrender and all-out nuclear war.
27507-3-184J
Statement on Nassau Meetings
These are the important questions of strategy which are now in the process of being exhaustively examined in the NATO council. Indeed, I believe that the whole future direction and shape of the military forces of NATO are now in process of review. The enormous costs of modern weapons systems and the speed with which they become obsolescent dictate the utmost care in reaching final decisions. It would be premature at this stage to say anything further about western defence policy until there is a clear indication as to whether or not some form of NATO multilateral nuclear force can be worked out.
I realize that the communiques in question have received full press coverage, but hon. members in the house might like to have these joint communiques tabled. If the house agrees, I therefore suggest that they be tabled.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Printed in Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggests that they be placed on Hansard. If that is agreeable, I am within the desire of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, the Prime Minister asks to have these statements printed in Hansard as part of the record. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of communiques
above referred to, see appendix "A".]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we on this side have listened with great interest to the Prime Minister's observations on the recent conference at Nassau, and have learned from him what indeed we had previously learned from the press, that the question of a NATO nuclear deterrent was given further consideration by the leaders of the three governments at Nassau; this matter, indeed, has been under consideration now for a good many years going back to the days when those members of NATO, including Canada, first accepted a commitment in NATO which cannot be discharged effectively without nuclear arms.


Benjamin Cope (Ben) Thompson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the remarks of the Prime Minister concerning the Nassau conference, I should only like to say that these and other statements which have been made since then have drawn to our attention and also to the attention of the public at large the need of a general debate on defence matters. I trust that if the work program that has been suggested can be agreed to we can then look forward in the very near future,
2900	HOUSE OF
Report on Canada-Japan Committee this being no time for a debate on this subject, to a full discussion of this very 'vital matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, all I want to say is that we are developing the habit of dealing with very important matters on motions, when the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs makes a statement and each of the leaders makes some impromptu remarks. This all points up the need of an opportunity for a very full discussion of this question in the House of Commons.
As far as our group is concerned, I want to say that we view with increasing apprehension the suggestion of a multinational nuclear power being built up in NATO, and we will certainly welcome an opportunity for an early discussion of this matter on the floor of the house.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief report to the house on the first meeting of the Canada-Japan ministerial committee which was held in Tokyo on January 11 and 12.
Hon. members will recall that the Canada-Japan ministerial committee was established during the visit of Prime Minister Ikeda to Ottawa in June, 1961. Its terms of reference as set out in the joint communique issued by the two prime ministers are as follows:
The two prime ministers agree that in view of the increasing importance of Canadian-Japanese relations, there should be established a Canadian-Japanese ministerial committee which would not be a negotiating body but would provide a valuable means of contact between ministers of the two countries. The activities of the committee would consist primarily of visits of ministers to each other's country from time to time to exchange views on matters of common interest, particularly in the economic field, and to familiarize themselves with the problems of the other country.
At this first meeting of the committee my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and I had the honour to represent Canada, together with the under secretary of state for external affairs, the deputy minister of trade and commerce, the deputy minister of national revenue (customs and excise), the Canadian ambassador to Japan, and other officials. The Japanese representatives were the minister for foreign affairs, the minister of finance, the minister for agriculture and forestry, the minister for international trade and industry, the minister of state and director-general of the economic planning agency, and the Japanese ambassador to Canada.
[Mr. Thompson.)

All those who participated regarded this meeting as an outstanding success. It demonstrated clearly the valuable contribution this committee can make toward closer relations between Canada and Japan, which are already very friendly, and toward developing a fuller understanding in each country of the problems and aspirations of the other.
As I shall be tabling copies of the communique I need not recount the outcome of this meeting in full detail. I should like, however, to mention some of the most important items.
The meeting began with a general review of economic conditions and prospects in both countries. This was followed by a comprehensive discussion of trade relations between Canada and Japan. This discussion was forthright and candid, yet completely friendly throughout. We reviewed the remarkable growth of trade in both directions since the conclusion of our trade agreement in 1954, and there was general agreement that there were excellent prospects for the continued expansion of mutually beneficial trade.
On the Canadian side we explained the difficulties that arose for certain Canadian industries when Japanese exports of highly competitive products were concentrated too heavily in particular lines, and we urged Japan to diversify its exports as much as possible. In this connection the Japanese representatives reiterated that Japan would adhere to the principle of orderly marketing of Japanese exports to Canada of products competitive with our own production. I should make it clear that we did not discuss the question of the levels of export restraint Japan will apply in relation to Canada in 1963. This committee is not a negotiating body, and the consultations in regard to Japan's export restraints are proceeding through the normal channels.
The committee had a particularly valuable discussion of recent developments in international economic relations. I quote from the communique:
The committee took special note of the joint initiative taken by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States in calling for a meeting of ministers to set in train a broad program for the liberalization and expansion of trade. The committee welcomed the fact that this meeting would take place under the auspices of GATT in the early part of 1963. The committee stressed the importance of achieving the broadest participation in the tariff negotiations which would follow the meeting of ministers and emphasized that such negotiations must be based upon the unconditional most favoured nation principle. The committee recognized the need to make progress in all sectors of trade.
We also discussed the forthcoming United Nations conference on trade and development. We agreed that Canada and Japan

Report on Canada-Japan Committee
should work closely together in the preparatory committee in order to ensure the success of the United Nations conference.
Since the inception of the organization for economic co-operation and development (O.E.C.D.), Japan has been an active member of the development assistance committee of that organization, but has not participated in its other activities. There is a growing recognition among members of the O.E.C.D. that Japan, as a leading industrial and trading country, could make a valuable contribution to the work of the organization and that fuller participation by Japan is therefore desirable. In our meeting in Tokyo we expressed the support of the Canadian government for full Japanese membership in the O.E.C.D.
Another important subject of discussion was our mutual interest in a number of fisheries matters. While this was not an occasion for negotiations or for seeking commitments on either side, the committee had a full and useful review of the issues involved.
It was also agreed that negotiations should be initiated between the two governments for the conclusion of an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation.
My report would not be complete without an expression of appreciation for the hospitality and friendship accorded to us on all sides during our visit to Tokyo. We received the warmest welcome by the prime minister and the other Japanese ministers, and indeed by all the Japanese we met. The arrangements made for the meeting were excellent in every respect. My colleagues and I in the Canadian government look forward to the opportunity of welcoming our Japanese friends to Ottawa when the next meeting of the committee takes place.
I am tabling copies of the joint communique. If the house so desires I would ask that the communique be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister proposes that the communique be printed as an appendix to Hansard. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of communique above referred to, see appendix "B".]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will have listened with interest to the report of the Minister of Justice on his return from his trip to Japan where he took part in trade negotiations. I had the opportunity of following some of these discussions in the columns of the English language Japanese paper, in Tokyo which pays tribute to
the work done by the minister at these meetings and which reports him as reminding, in the course of these trade negotiations, the Japanese ministers that Canada's unemployment rate is perhaps the highest in the free world. I hope the minister will not be accused of being a prophet of doom and gloom on his return.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement. I saw that sentence appearing in the press and took steps to see it was corrected by information extended to the press. No such statement was made.


Benjamin Cope (Ben) Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it having been my privilege to help prepare the way for the visit of our honourable delegation from Canada to Japan I can say that we in this party have listened with much interest to the report of the discussions which took place. Certainly they are the kind of thing of which Canada needs more. If we are going to have any solid trade pattern at all in the Canadian economy we must expect to buy if we want to sell, and it is discussions like these which help our trade relationships achieve a greater depth of understanding.
I would just remark that herein is the pattern that ought to be developing with many other nations, where our trade has not reached the proportions which it could and must reach if we are to go forward into the tremendous potential of the era which is ahead of us. I too would like to emphasize the interest which the Japanese have in Canada, but I believe there is a woeful lack in information exchanged between our countries, information which is necessary to develop a greater understanding on the part of the public.
One of the most common questions I was asked was "Could you send us some films dealing with your Eskimos and Indians?" This is just part of a pattern which is healthy and which I trust will be greatly extended in the future.
There is one other remark I should like to make, and I think it is relevant to what the minister said. In speaking about the preparations for this conference he referred not only to the Japanese officials but also to our representatives in that country. Certainly I found that our Canadian people are held in great regard and high esteem in countries like Japan, and this is another reason why we can make discussions such as these as successful as they have been.
2902	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Introduction of Bills BANKRUPTCY ACT


Mr. Eugene F. Whelan (Essex Soulh) moved: lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-106, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (crops under processing).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the first reading of Bill No. S-2, (from the Senate), to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Howard: For each month since November 1, 1961, how many Indians, by band, of which each was a member, in the (a) Fort St. John Indian agency and (b) that part of the Yukon Indian agency which is in B.C., have been hospitalized, in which hospital, and for what ailment?


Mrs. Casselman:: (a) FORT ST. JOHN INDIAN AGENCY
Band	No. Treated	Hospital
Diagnosis
November, 1961
Slave of Fort N elson band....	1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Whitehorse general hospital_ Infectious hepatitis
Charles Camsell hospital.... Haemangioma
Ft. Nelson general	 Pneumonia
"	Trit.is
"		 Chronic bronchitis
"		 Coryza
"		 Nutritional deficiency
"		 Infectious hepatitis
"		Burns
"		 Pneumonia
"		 Hepatitis
"		 Bronchitis
"		 Otitismedia
"		 Gastritis
"		 Cyesis
"		 Infected eye
"		 Gastroenteritis
"		 Asthma
"		Abdominal pain
"		 Dehydration
Miller Bay ind. hospital	 Pulmonary T.B.
Hudson Hope band	 2
1
St. Joseph's general, Dawson
Creek	 Cellulitis
St. Joseph's general, Dawson
Creek	 Pregnancy
Pouce Coupe community hospital	 Meningitis
Salteau band
2
2
1
St. Joseph's general, Dawson
Creek	
St. Joseph's general	
it
Pouce Coupe general	
a

Rheumatic fever Pregnancy
Pseudocyst of pancreas Bronchial pneumonia Chickenpox
Pelvic Inflammatory disease Tonsillitis and chickenpox
Beaver band
1	Providence	hospital,	Ft.	St.
John	 Upper respiratory infection
2	Providence	hospital,	Ft.	St.
John	 Diarrhea
1	Miller Bay	 Otitismedia

T.B. investigation Hypertrophy prostate Pulmonary T.B. Bronchiactasis Congenital heart failure
Atlin-Teslin band
1
1
	 Grand mal epilepsy
"		 Cellulitis arm
	 Cellulitis hand
Coqualeetza	 Mental deficiency
Nanaimo	 Pulmonary T.B.
Liard River band
May, 1962 Tahltan band
1	Whitehorse general		
1		.... Breast abscess
1	it	
1	tt	
1	Charles Camsell 		
1	Miller Bay hospital		
2	Whitehorse general		
1	it	
1	" 	.... Foreign body in eye1	tt	.... P.I.D.1	ft	.... T.B.1	St. Paul's hospital, Van	2	Miller Bay	
Atlin-Teslin band
1
1
1
Whitehorse general	 Lobar pneumonia
"		 Cellulitis-hand
"		 Epilepsy
"		 Acute cervicites
"		 Parturition
"		 Acute choleeystites
"		 Bronchopneumonia
Liard River band
June, 1962 Tahltan band
1
1
1
"		 Gunshot wounds
"		 Bursitis
Miller Bay	 Pulmonary T.B.
Charles Camsell	 T.B. investigation,
"		 Gunshot wound
"		 Fracture femur
"		 T.B. mastitis
1
1
Whitehorse general	 Newborn
"		 Fracture mandible
"		 Gastric ulcer
"		 Acute cholecystitis-parturition
Miller Bay	 Pulmonary T.B.
Atlin-Teslin band
1	Whitehorse general	
Acute cholecystitis1	"	
Bronchopneumonia

Questions
Band	No. Treated	Hospital
Diagnosis
June, 1962 (cont.)			
Liard River band	... 1	Whitehorse General	.... Acute cystitis1	U	
Bronchopneumonia1	Charles Camsell	..,. T. B. investigation1	11	1	"	
Fracture femur1	"	1	Miller Bay	July, 1962	Tahltan band	... 1	Whitehorse general	1	.... Parturition1	it	1	it	1	Nanaimo	1	Miller Bay	Atlin-Teslin band	... 1	Whitehorse general	1	1	Miller Bay	Liard River band	... 3	Whitehorse general	1	.... Bronchopneumonia1	"	1	"	1	Charles Camsell hospital...	1	a	1	a	.... T.B. mastitis1	it	1	"	T.B. kidney1	Miller Bay	August, 1962	Tahltan band	... 1	Whitehorse	1	Nanaimo	1	Miller Bay	.... Pulmonary T.B.Atlin-Teslin band	... 1	Whitehorse general	1	.... Acute bronchitis1	Miller Bay	Liard River band	... 2	Whitehorse general	.... New born2	u	.... Parturition1	a	.... Third degree burns1	Charles Camsell	1	<<	.... Fracture femur1	u	1	Miller Bay	September, 1962	Tahltan band	.. 1	Whitehorse general	.... P.I.D.1	1	1	1	Nanaimo	1	1	Miller Bay	1	Atlin Teslin band	.. 1	Whitehorse general	1	Miller Bay	1	Liard River band	.. 1	Charles Camsell	1	" 	1	1	Miller Bay	October, 1962	Tahltan band	Whitehorse general	.... Fracture pelvis1	" 	.... Bronchopneumonia1	" 	,... Fracture-nose1	1	" 	.... Fracture pelvis
Questions
Band
No. Treated
Hospital
Diagnosis
ctober, 1962 (cont.) Tahltan band		... i	Whitehorse general			 Hematuria
	i			 Abscess-neck
	i			 Rheumatic fever
	i	Nanaimo			 Cerebral palsy
	i	Miller Bay		
Atlin Teslin band	... i	u	Liard River band	... i	Charles Camsell	
Gunshot woundi	tt	i	"	
T.B. mastitisi	Miller Bay


GRAIN SALES BY WHEAT BOARD AND AGENTS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,093
Mr. Korchinski:: 1.	What are the names of the companies or agencies which in the last 10 years have been selling to foreign countries, wheat and other grains, which are handled by the Canadian wheat board?
2.	Which countries have bought wheat and other grains from these companies or agencies during the same period?
3.	What are the amounts of wheat and other grains sold to each country by these companies or agencies during the same period?
4.	In the last 10 years, what amount of wheat and other grains has been sold by the wheat board directly, and to which countries?
5.	During the same period, what amount of wheat and other grains was sold to Canadian purchasers directly by the wheat board?
6. During this same period, what amount of wheat and other grains was sold in Canada by agents selling for the wheat board?
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that I be allowed to withdraw this question in order to rephrase it. As the question now stands the answer would involve considerable research, which will take too long a time, and I think I can get the information I seek by redrafting the question and putting it another way.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the question be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and question withdrawn.


ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS, RED BANK BAND, MIRAMICHI INDIAN AGENCY, N.B.
Mr. McWilliam: Was there any surrender or allotment of band funds of the Red Bank band, Miramichi Indian agency, New Brunswick, other than the amount of $2,766.44 toward the cost of the installation of water services on this reserve and, if so, in what amount or amounts?


Mr. McGee:: Yes, $3,233.56 was spent in the fiscal year 1960-1961. This amount, together with the amount ,of $2,766.44 referred to in the question, was authorized by band council resolution dated June 9, 1960, to be expended,

out of the capital funds of the band, for the installation of a water supply system in the reserve.


ASSISTANT POSTAL CLERK
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What is the annual salary of an assistant postal clerk, and his daily hours of work?
2.	How does this compare with the prevailing rates of pay and daily hours of work of a clerk 1 and a labourer?


Mr. Halpenny:: 1. There is no such class under the civil service commission.
2.	Not applicable.


MANUFACTURE OF HEAVY WATER IN CANADA
Mr. Davis: Has consideration been given to the recommendations of last year's House of Commons committee on research to the effect that the government should undertake economic and engineering studies concerning the feasibility of a plant for the manufacture in Canada of heavy water?


Mr. Churchill:: Studies concerning the
feasibility of the manufacture of heavy water in Canada have been undertaken independently by several Canadian companies. Proposals concerning the construction and operation of such a plant, and the sale of the product, have been submitted to the government.


&quot;LEAD YARD&quot; PRINCIPLE IN SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,131
Mr. Laing:: 1.	What is the principle of "lead yard" in the awarding of shipyard building and repair contracts?
2.	Does this principle require that the "lead yard" subsequently supervises and controls purchasing of components on jobs allotted to other yards wherever located?
3.	Is there any record of a "lead yard" in eastern Canada purchasing plywood or other components for installation in job contracts let in British Columbia yards?


Mr. O'Hurley:: 1. The "lead yard" principle occurs in naval ship construction only in those


21, 1S63
[Stage Direction]
cases where there is under construction concurrently a number of ships of the same class. It does not apply to ship repairs or to the construction of one ship of a class.
The "lead yard" principle is based on the following considerations:
(a)	The commencement and progression of one ship, i.e. the lead ship, in advance of the follow ships. By so doing, the experience gained in the construction of that lead ship can be translated to the benefit of the follow ships.
(b)	Associated with lead yard production is the principle of central procurement. Most of the major equipment in warships, such as the propulsion system, electronic gear, armament, etc., is purchased directly by the Department of Defence Production and issued to the shipbuilders. A small percentage of material is procured by the shipyards themselves. However, that material which must be "worked into" the ship including items such as steel, structural sections, pipes, flanges, valves, hatches, doors, insulation material, etc., is procured centrally through the naval shipbuilding central procurement agency with delivery to the shipyards on the basis of schedules established by defence production. Almost without exception such materials are procured on competitive basis.
The naval shipbuilding central procurement agency, located in Canadian Vickers, the lead yard in the current destroyer escort program, operates under a management contract placed by the Department of Defence Production and is subject to the purchasing control and supervision of this department.
(c)	Further associated with the lead principle is that of preparing the drawings centrally in a drawing office associated with the lead yard. The agency for this purpose is the naval central drawing office. It is operated under a contract from the Department of Defence Production and is subject to the joint controls of the departments of national defence and defence production.
In summary, the lead yard principle introduces reduction of effort, simplicity of administration, economy of procurement and speed of financing.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	No. Standard plywood is not bought centrally. It is one of the items for which the shipyards determine their own source of supply.
However, certain specialized types of fireproof impregnated plywood are procured centrally through the naval shipbuilding central procurement agency. In the current destroyer escort program such a specialized type of plywood was procured centrally, the portion required for two west coast ships
Questions
being placed with a west coast supplier and the portion required for four eastern ships being supplied by an eastern company.
Recently in a conversion program, as distinct from new construction, a similar specialized plywood was procured centrally through an east coast firm and issued to ships under conversion on the west coast. However, this, order was placed on a competitive basis and at a cost lower than western suppliers quoted. The order amounted to $2,276.50.

Mr. Laing: 1.	In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961, what was the total value of unclassified defence contracts let?
2.	Of this total, what percentage was let in each of the provinces?
3.	Are quotations sought f.o.b. shipping point or delivered destination, or both ways?
4.	During the above fiscal year, to how many, and where located, warehouses, were purchases shipped by suppliers?
5.	During the above fiscal year, were there reshipments recorded either in straight or mixed carlots, of goods purchased in Ontario to defence installations in British Columbia?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: 1. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961, the net value of all contracts let by the Department of Defence Production was $615,011,419. This figure includes both classified and unclassified contracts as aggregate information on unclassified contracts only is not maintained. The net value includes the value of all new contracts plus increasing amendments minus decreasing amendments.
2.	It is not practical to maintain precise-statistics on the provincial distribution of contracts that would show the effect of the department's contracting on the various provinces. In the case of contracts issued by the head office sections of the department, the geographic identification would have to be based on the mailing address to which the contract is sent. This would not necessarily indicate the location at which the work would be performed. For example, contracts placed with head offices in centres such as Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa may be directed by the companies concerned to plants located in other parts of the country. Also, figures for the-provinces would not take into account the extent of subcontracting inherent in defence production, and would not allow for the source of raw materials involved. In the case of contracts issued by the department's fourteen district offices across Canada, it is not practical to keep provincial statistics because of the very large number and small value of the-contracts involved.
3.	Quotations are normally sought f.o.b. destination. In some cases where the destination is not known at the time of tender, quotations are sought f.o.b. shipping point.

Questions
4.	Information on the number and location of warehouses to which purchases are shipped by suppliers is not kept in the department. To obtain this information would involve an examination of approximately 140,000 contracts.
5.	Information on possible reshipments of goods purchased in Ontario to defence installations in British Columbia is not available in the department.
(Translation):


TRAINING OP STUDENTS TO BECOME METEOROLOGISTS
Mr. Rinfret: 1.	In 1961, how many university students or graduates took part in the Civil Service Commission project designed to train (a) meteorological officers (b) meteorologists?
2.	How many among those who took part in the plan came from Laval, Montreal and Sherbrooke universities?


George Ernest Halpenny: 1.	(a) 33; (b) 15.
2.	1 meteorological officer; 2 meteorologists. (Text):


UNIVERSITY STUDENTS GIVEN SUMMER EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Rinfret: 1.	In 1961, how many students studying for bachelor degrees obtained summer employment under the annual program of the civil service commission?
2.	Among those who obtained employment, how many came from the Universities of Laval, Montreal, and Sherbrooke?


George Ernest Halpenny: 1. Figures are not available for the years prior to 1962 as no statistics were then kept for summer employment.
2. See 1 above.


INMATES OF FEDERAL PENITENTIARIES RECEIVING PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT
Mr. Orlikow: Dorchester	212
St. Vincent de Paul	725
Kingston	961
Collin's Bay	214
Joyceville	64
Manitoba	83
Manitoba	610
All inmates during interviews given some form of treatment.
Saskatchewan	50
British Columbia	249
TOTAL	3,168
3.	Warden
Deputy warden Medical officer Psychologist Keepers Officers
Classification department Inmate
National parole service Outside agencies Court
Administrative referrals
In case of emergency every member of the staff can refer to the psychiatric hospital.
N.B.-Saskatchewan figures based on 1961 figures. An approximate report from St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary as actual figures lost in the fire._________________________


PITT MEADOWS AIRPORT, B.C.  LAND ACQUIRED
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many inmates of federal penitentiaries received psychiatric examination in the past year?
2.	How many received psychiatric treatment in the past year?
3.	Who decided which inmates required such examination or treatment?
Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Dorchester	212
St. Vincent de Paul	400
Kingston	1,067
Collin's Bay	113
Joyceville	90
Manitoba	610
Saskatchewan	155
British Columbia	161
TOTAL	2,808


Mr. Laing: 1.	In respect of land acquired for an airport site at Pitt Meadows, British Columbia, what was (a) number of properties acquired (b) acreage involved in each property (c) price paid per acre (list value of improvements if purchased separately) ?
2.	Were all properties secured by negotiation and, if not, are certain expropriations before the courts and, if so (a) how many (b) what acreage is involved in each?
3.	In the case of each property listed in No. 2 as an incomplete transaction, what was the highest offer per acre made to the former owners?


Mr. McBain:: 1. (a) 39 owners were involved; 36 cases completed; 2 before the courts and 1 with the municipality of Pitt Meadows outstanding.
(Mr. O'Hurley.]

Questions
(b)	and (c) The list hereunder shows cases where settlement completed:
Owner	Area	Cost of Land	Cost of Improvements	Total CostM. and S. Baron	2.30	a.	$ 1,500.00	(500/a)	$12,500.00	$14,000.00M. Hamming	1.25	a.	750,00	(600/a)	12,250.00	13,000.00V. McLennan	1.25	a.	625.00	(500/a)	8,875.00	9,500.00M. Sadwick	0.84	a.	588.00	(700/a)	3,012.00	3,600.00W. Van Norman	1.60	a.	700.00	(700/a)	1,300.00	2,000.00J. Tatosky	10.00	a.	5,000.00	(500/a)	19,000.00	24,000.00W. Ball	2.50	a.	1,250.00	(500/a)	6,500.00	7,750.00J. Trach	4.22	a.	2,125.00	(500/a)	3,875.00	6,000.00S. Korysma	10.00	a.	6,000.00	(600/a)	9,500.00	15,500.00P. Vilac	9.57	a.	4,785.00	(500/a)	13,715.00	18,500.00F. Frandsen	0.50	a.	500.00	%	5,500.00	6,000.00J. McKenzie	1.00	a.	600.00	(600/a)	5,400.00	6,000.00R. Bennett	11.31	a.	5,655.00	(500/a)	10,345.00	16,000.00L. Hambleton	10.00	a.	5,000.00	(500/a)	17,600.00	22,600.00D. Wilde	2.79	a.	1,255.50	(450/a)	4,594.50	5,850.00W. Speigler	15.00	a.	6,750.00	(450/a)	10,750.00	17,500.00P. Cunningham	2.79	a.	1,255.50	(450/a)	6,744.50	8,000.00J. Thompson	9.38	a.	5,159.00	(550/a)	19,341.00	24,500.00R. Lay	8.53	a.	3,838.50	(450/a)	31,661.50	35,500.00F. Arkesteyn	10.00	a.	6,000.00	(600/a)	11,000.00	17,000.00H. Linford	4.80	a.	2,850.00	(550/a)	nil	2,850.00J. Stewart	28.30	a.	16,000.00	(550/a)	nil	16,000.00R. Knull	5.00	a.	3,500.00	(700/a)	10,500.00	14,000.00P. Knull	19.77	a.	11,862.00	(600/a)	25,138.00	37,000.00D. Sharpe	70.12	a.	43,825.00	(625/a>	5,175.00	49,000.00W. Mitchell	9.70	a.	6,062.50	(625/a)	1,437.50	7,500.00W. Mitchell	20.00	a.	12,000.00	(600/a)	3,500.00	15,500.00J. Robertson	95.38	a.	52,459.00	(550/a)	65,041.00	117,000.00A. Wiens	18.80	a.	10,342.75	(550/a)	8,457.25	18,800.00J. Herbert	26.32	a.	14,734.50	(550/a)	13,265.50	28,000.00J. Klimavicius	29.35	a.	16,140.30	(550/a)	10,359.70	26,500.00H. Sutton	118.50	a.	65,175.00	(550/a)	59,825.00	125,000.00A. Kruusma	19.90	a.	10,945.00	(550/a)	15,555.00	26,500.00J. Knull	20.20	a.	12,120.00	(600/a)	22,880.00	35,000.00L. Cleave	20.00	a.	12,500.00	(625/a)	2,500.00	15,000.00L. Saunders	4.16	a.	2,024.00	(500/a)	8,916.00	11,000.00
*$500 considered as minimum price for building lot.
2.	All properties were expropriated on May 28, 1957.
(a)	2 settlements before the courts.
(b)	Acreage involved in each case-23.83 acres (B. Schlick) and 15.83 acres (J. Robertson).
3.	The department considers that information as to offers made to former owners in the cases before the courts should remain confidential pending judgment of the court. Negotiations with the municipality of Pitt Meadows have not yet been commenced. (Translation):


CANADIAN PACIFIC
Mr. Dube: 1.	Has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company recently made an application to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada with a view to the discontinuance of passenger and express service between McAdam and Edmundston (trains 123, 124) and, if so, what decision has been taken by the board in this matter?
2.	Was a similar application made in 1961 and, if so, what decision was then taken by the board?


James Alexander McBain: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advises as follows:
1.	Yes. The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada has received an application dated October 2, 1962 for authority to discontinue trains 123 and 124 between McAdam and Edmundston, N.B. This matter is presently under investigation by the board's officers.

Questions
2.	Yes. The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada received an application dated June 8, 1961 for authority to discontinue passenger train service between Edmundston and McAdam, N.B., provided by trains 123 and 124, and to reduce the passenger train service between McAdam and Saint John, N.B., provided by trains 101 and 102. Following a public hearing in Woodstock, N.B. on November 8, 1961, the board dismissed the application to discontinue passenger train service between Edmundston and McAdam and authorized the discontinuance of passenger train service between Saint John and McAdam.
(Text):


E.C.M.P. TAILORING COSTS
Mr. Matheson: 1.	What does it cost per unit to produce the following articles of clothing in R.C.M.P. tailor shops (a) tunics (b) jackets (c) breeches, and (d) trousers?
2.	What does it cost to outfit completely one R.C.M.P. constable?
3.	Does the R.C.M.P. entertain any criticism of these tailor shops as to quality, cost, or service which would justify implementing the Glassco commission suggestion that commercial tailors be used?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1. (a) tunics, scarlet serge, $36.53; (b) peajackets, $48.58; jackets, brown serge, $36.16; (c) breeches, $24.64; (d) trousers, blue serge, $19.77.
2.	$527.50.
3.	No.


*LAKE SIMCOE CANAL
Mr. Ryan: Has the government made any study of a lake Simcoe canal route to short circuit the St. Lawrence seaway, particularly in respect to a canal between Barrie and Collingwood and another between the vicinities of Pefferlaw and Oshawa?


James Alexander McBain: There is no record of any study in respect of a canal between the vicinities of Pefferlaw and Oshawa, but a reconnaissance survey of a canal between Barrie and Nottawasaga Bay near Collingwood was made in January, 1906.
(Translation):


*QUEBEC
Mr. Beaule: Has the government carried on negotiations concerning level crossings on the Canadian Pacific tracks situated within the city of Quebec and, if so, what are the results of such negotiations?


Mr. Balcer:: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advises as follows:
An application submitted by the city of Quebec for authority to eliminate the level crossing at St. Sacrament boulevard is presently being studied by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. The board is

awaiting a reply from the city of Quebec with a view to ascertaining if the city will agree to prepare the detailed plans of the project.
(Text):


PROSTHETIC APPLIANCES, VETERANS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT    MANUFACTURE AND RESEARCH
Mr. Matheson: 1.	At what centres does the Department of Veterans Affairs repair, fit and manufacture, prosthetic and orthotic appliances and sensory devices?
2.	What research, if any, is conducted in this field by the department?
3.	How, if at all, do disabled people, who are not veterans, benefit from these facilities?
4.	How, if at all, does private industry, engaged in the manufacture of prosthetic appliances, share in the research achievements of the department?


Gordon Minto Churchill: 1. Prosthetic and orthotic appliances are repaired, fitted and manufactured by the Department of Veterans Affairs in Halifax, Saint John, Montreal, Ottawa, London, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria. Sensory devices are supplied through departmental facilities but are obtained by purchase from commercial manufacturers.
2.	The department operates a research and development section in the prosthetic centre at Sunnybrook hospital, Toronto.
3.	Prosthetic service, as part of treatment, may be given under the authority of section 20, veterans treatment regulations, to a person at the request of a responsible body, politic or corporate, where facilities for such treatment are not otherwise available; provided that such body has assumed liability for the cost thereof. A certificate of nonavailability elsewhere is required.
4.	Prosthetic technicians in private industry are invited to attend training courses and certain conferences arranged by the department for the information and education of its own employees. The department also arranges for special training on request.


INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION IN PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Matheson: 1.	By institutions, what products are manufactured by the industrial division of our penitentiaries, and what was the total value of these manufactures during the year ended March 31, 1962?
2.	What services are performed for Her Majesty or what other benefits are derived as a result of the employment of inmates?
3.	Are the penitentiaries prepared to accept new and larger orders for manufactures from the public service?
4.	What importance has the industrial shop program to the rehabilitation of prisoners?
5.	What benefits, if any, do inmates derive from employment in penitentiary shops?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1. (See attached statement).
Answer No. 1.

Questions


SCOPE OF MANUFACTURE BY INDUSTRIAL DIVISION SHOPS, FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1962
[Stage Direction]
Automotive repairs and	Brush	Canvas	Concrete	Metal	Wood	body work	products	products	Clothing	products Footwear products	products	PrintingSpringhill	X	X	Dorchester	X	X	X X	X	X	St. Vincent de Paul.	X	X	X	X	X	X	Leclerc	
X	X	X	X	X	Valley field	X	X	X	Kingston	X	X	X	X	X	XCollin's Bay	X	X	Joyceville	X	X	X	Manitoba	X	X	X X	X	X	Saskatchewan	X	X	X	X	X	XBritish Columbia...	X	X	X X	X	X	
Total value of production
* 1,318,674.40
2.	Services performed by the industrial shops in addition to the above manufactures, are repair and upkeep of machinery and equipment of other penitentiary divisions; repairs to mail bags; repair to wooden office furniture and metal cabinets for public works; a minor amount of automotive repairs and body work on government vehicles; repairs to footwear and clothing; bookbinding.
3.	Yes.
4.	The objectives of penitentiary industry are to ensure that inmates, (a) will be fully, regularly and suitably employed at tasks that will train them to obtain and hold employment when they return to society, and (b) will, through their labour, assist in defraying the cost to the public of operating the penitentiary service.
5.	Training in occupational skills, and industrious work habits; training in the ability to work in association with other employees.

Mr. Roxburgh: Is the national research council carrying out any studies on the methods of counteracting the effects of detergent on sewage?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


CAPITAL OFFENDERS SERVING LIFE SENTENCES
Mr. Matheson: 1.	How many prisoners convicted of capital offences are now serving life imprisonment?
2.	What is the estimated average annual production of goods and services of these "lifers"?
3.	What is the average annual cost of their maintenance?
4.	What special problems, if any, do they present to the prison population and to the custodial staff?
5.	How do these men and women adjust to permanent prison life, and are their lives tolerable and worth while?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1. 121.
2.	Impossible to estimate.
3.	Approximately $2,500.
4.	No special problems.
5.	After the first year the great majority adjust very well to prison life and, by participating in the inmate training program and in the hope of being released on parole, find their lives tolerable and worth while.


VISITS TO PENITENTIARIES BY JUDGES OR MAGISTRATES
Mr. Matheson: 1.	How many judges or magistrates have visited the following penal institutions during the year 1962: Dorchester, St. Vincent de Paul, Kingston, and Stony Mountain?
2.	Are invitations to the bench to visit penal institutions extended regularly?

Questions
3.	How many annual conferences of after-care agencies and government services, with dates, have taken place since the Fauteux committee report of April 30, 1956?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1. Dorchester, 17; St. Vincent de Paul, 91; Kingston, 2; Stony Mountain, 12.
2.	Invitations were extended through the attorneys general of the maritime provinces, Quebec and Manitoba. In Ontario, invitations were not officially extended, but all requests to visit the penitentiary have been approved.
3.	Two. One in 1957 and the other in 1958.
(Translation):


C.N.R. EMPLOYEES ENROLLED IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AT BISHOP'S UNIVERSITY
Mr. Rinfrei: During the summer of 1961, how many C.N.R. employees enrolled in courses in management education at Bishop's University, Lennoxville, Quebec, and, of these, how many were French speaking?


James Alexander McBain: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
In 1961 five individuals from the St. Lawrence region enrolled in the staff training course, of whom three were French Canadians.


C.N.R. EMPLOYEES AT THE SUPERVISORY LEVEL TAKING LEADERSHIP TRAINING COURSES
Mr. Rinfret: In 1961, how many C.N.R. employees in the province of Quebec at the supervisory level took leadership training courses and, of these, how many were French speaking?


James Alexander McBain: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
In the St. Lawrence region which includes Quebec city, 44 took leadership courses in 1961, 33 of whom were French Canadians.


TRANSPORT SERVICES BETWEEN MAGDALEN ISLANDS AND EASTERN PORTS OF CANADA
Mr. Sauve: For each fiscal year, from April 1, 1950, to March 31, 1962 (a) what federal grants were given to the Clarke Steamship Company in the case of each of the ships of that company supplying service between the Magdalen islands and the eastern ports of Canada (b) how many tons of goods have been carried on each of the lines mentioned above (c) how many passengers have been carried on each of the lines mentioned above?


James Alexander McBain: Clarke Steamship Co., Ltd. Montreal, Quebec and Gaspe ports and Magdalen Islands.
(a) 1950-51	$156,500
1951-52	156,500
1952-53	156,500
1953-54	156,500
1954-55	156,500
1955-56	156,500
1956-57	156,500
1957-58	189,000
1958-59	189,000
1959-60	189,000
1960-61	259,077
This service was	terminated in 1960-61
(b) 1950-51	9,040
1951-52	9,684
1952-53	10,958
1953-54	10,840
1954-55	11,698
1955-56	11,351
1956-57	13,139
1957-58	10,969
1958-59	8,064
Magdalen Islands Transportation Co. Pictou, Souris, Charlottetown and Magdalen Islands.
(a) 1950-51	$120,000
1951-52	120,000
1952-53	120,000
1953-54	120,000
1954-55	120,000
1955-56	120,000
1956-57	120,000
1957-58	174,000
1958-59	174,000
1959-60	174,000
1960-61	174,000
1961-62	298,000
(b) 1950-51	5,564
1951-52	6,437J
1952-53	6,923
1953-54	6,859
1954-55	6,529|
1955-56	7,503
1956-57	8,807
1957-58	7,628
1958-59	6.992J

Clarke Steamship Co., Ltd. Montreal, Quebec and Gaspe ports and Magdalen Islands.
1959- 60	8,158
1960- 61	6,441
Of these tonnages, about 2,500 tons were carried between Magdalen Islands and the mainland.
(c) 1950-51	2,614
1951-52	2,895
1952-53	3,146
1953-54	2,578
1954-55	2,263
1955-56	2,362
1956-57	2,128
1957-58	2,078
1958-59	1,921
1959-60	2,004
1960-61	2,030
Of these passengers,	about 30% were
tween Magdalen Islands and the mainland. (Text):


ALLOCATIONS FOR DEFENCE AND SOCIAL SECURITY,
Mr. Sauve: From April 1, 1930 to March 30,	1962, what
amounts were allocated by the federal government for each fiscal year for (a) national defence and (b) social security?


Mr. Graffiey:: Expenditures on health, welfare and
Fiscal	National	social security	year	defence	Family	ended	expenditures	allowances	Other(in millions of dollars)	1931	23.4	18.11932	17.9	55.01933	13.5	54.01934	13.2	53.91935	13.9	81.61936	17.2	102.71937	22.9	105.71938	32.7	103.41939	34.8	79.11940	125.7	78.11941	730.1	60.41942	1,267.7	51.91943	2,563.3	67.91944	4,241.6	75.61945	3,999.9	90.51946	2,942.1	172.6	112.71947	387.6	245.1	140.61948	196.0	263.2	156.41949	268.8	270.9	153.41950	387.2	297.5	192.9
Questions
Magdalen Islands Transportation Co. Pictou, Souris, Charlottetown and Magdalen Islands.
1959-	60	7,262*1960-	61	7,674*1961-	62	7,825(c)	1950-51	2,1241951-	52	2,5981952-	53	2,2151953-	54	2,2071954-	55	2,2561955-	56	2,0381956-	57	1,9141957-	58	1,7751958-	59	1,6781959-	60	1,3791960-	61	1,5441961-	62	2,449
Expenditures on health, welfare and
Fiscal	National	social security	year	defence	Family	ended	expenditures	allowances	Other(in millions of dollars)	1951	787.3	309.5	225.01952	1,446.5	320.5	252.31953	1,972.9	334.2	151.71954	1,857.8	350.1	155.51955	1,687.9	366.5	207.21956	1,768.6	382.5	235.71957	1,783.8	397.5	252.41958	1,687.4	437.9	324.41959	1,442.4	474.8	512.21960	1,534.2	491.2	458.61961	1,537.9	506.2	538.61962	1,650.0	520.8	703.0
Expenditures, rather than allocations, are given on the understanding that Mr. Sauve has agreed to this change.


*ESTABLISHMENT OF WESTERN CANADA VETERINARY COLLEGE
Mr. Ormislon: Is the federal government presently negotiating with the four western provinces regarding financial assistance for the establishment of a western veterinary college?


Mr. Jorgenson:: Discussions have been held with the western provinces concerning the veterinary college, but there have been no formal negotiations regarding financial assistance.

Questions


C.N.R.-USE OF MARGARINE IN DINING CARS
Mr. Roxburgh: Does the C.N.R. use margarine in any of its dining cars or restaurants and if so, how much was used from January 1, 1962, to date?


James Alexander McBain: No.


IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL
Mr. Roxburgh: 1.	How many employees did the department of immigration have at home and abroad in 1961, and what was the overall cost to the government of these employees for 1961, including offices, wages, etc.?
2.	How many employees did the department of immigration have in 1956, and what was the total cost of these employees for 1956 to the government including office rents, wages, etc.?


Frank Charles McGee: 1. As of December 31, 1961, the number of persons employed by the immigration branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration was 2,017, of whom 356 were stationed abroad. The cost to the government of these employees for 1961 was $9,941,637 for salaries, allowances, travel and removal expenses and rental and maintenance of office quarters.
2.	As of December 31, 1956, the number of persons employed by the immigration branch was 1,897, of whom 351 were stationed abroad. The cost of these employees for 1956 was $7,698,273 for the same expenses shown in (1). *


* JOHN FISHER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Malheson: 1.	Was John Fisher, special assistant to the Prime Minister, interviewed on the C.T.V. network on June 11, 1962, and, if so, what was the subject of the interview?
2.	Is John Fisher paid a salary as a full-time member of the public service of Canada?
3.	Do the duties of special assistant to the Prime Minister include broadcasting during general election campaigns?


Mr. Baldwin:: 1. Yes, his position.
2.	Yes.
3.	The duties of special assistant to the Prime Minister are similar to those of any executive officer attached to ministers or to the office of the Leader of the Opposition. [Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might address a question to the hon. member for Peace River in his capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister and ask the hon. gentleman if it would be possible for him to complete the answer to part 1 of starred question No. 1,219, which asks what was the subject of the interview given by

John Fisher, special assistant to the Prime Minister, on the C.T.V. network on June 11, 1962, during the election campaign?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the question was answered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not answered.


IMPORTS OF ICE CREAM FROM ENGLAND
Mr. Dumont: 1.	What quantity of ice cream imported from England, came through the port of Montreal in the week of December 12, 1962?
2.	What quantity was imported throughout the
year?
3.	Have these imports contributed to an increase in the surplus of dairy products in Canada and, if so, what is the amount of increase in the surplus of dairy products in Canada and, if so, what is the amount of increase in expenditure on subsidies for dairy products?


George Ernest Halpenny: 1 and 2. There are no statistics on imports of ice cream, nor on imports in particular weeks of the year. If ice cream imports were cleared under tariff item 141, they would be included in import class 242 "Flavouring powders, custard powders, jelly powders, sweetened breads, cakes, pies, puddings, and all other confections containing sugar n.o.p." Documents relating to December imports will not be processed for several weeks.
3. Although specific information on imports of ice cream is not available, the Department of Agriculture made a chemical examination of 3,000 pounds of import product, erroneously invoiced as ice cream, which arrived at Montreal from England during the week of December 12, 1962. The examination revealed that there was no milk fat or other milk product in the commodity and therefore its importation did not contribute to an increase of dairy products in Canada nor to an increase in total subsidies paid on dairy products.
PROJECTS UNDER VOTE 12a OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES


Mr. MacEachen: 1.	What projects will be undertaken from vote 12A of the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963?
2.	In what localities and counties of Cape Breton are these projects located, and what is the number of men employed on each project?
3.	What are the rates of pay and the lodging arrangements for these workers?
4.	Are unemployed miners from the Doucette mine in Inverness given preference in these forestry projects?
5.	Of unemployed miners currently employed on any such projects, what number are (a) from the Doucette mine, Inverness, and (b) from Cape Breton county?

Questions


Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-Carleion):: 1 and 2:
Miners
Location	Nature of Project	EmployedKellys Mountain, Victoria county Oregan No. 1	"	"Oregan No. 3	"	"Crodis Mountain	"	"Hunters Mountain	"	"Fielding rd. No. 1	"	"Fielding rd. No. 2	"	"
Portree (Cranton section)
Inverness county Coxheath	Cape Breton county
3.	Employees are paid at the rate of $10 per day plus 2 per cent holiday pay and are lodged in temporary camps provided by the provincial department of lands and forests. Board and lodging is charged to the men at the rate of $1 per day.
4.	Employees from the Doucette mine are given preference on the Inverness county project.
5.	12 of the miners employed previously worked at the Doucette mine and 138 at the mines of Cape Breton county.


*C.B.C. TELEVISION OF U.S. AND CANADIAN SPORTS
Mr. Dube: 1.	How many hours has the C.B.C. devoted this year to televising or radio broadcasting of American sports?
2.	How many hours has the C.B.C. devoted this year to televising or radio broadcasting of our national sport, hockey?


George Ernest Halpenny: 1 am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	In the 52 weeks October 15, 1961 to October 13, 1962 the total number of hours of sports broadcasts carried on the English and French radio and television networks of the C.B.C. was 814 hours and 19 minutes, of which 333 hours and 14 minutes were devoted to American sports and 481 hours and .05 minutes to Canadian sports events.
2.	In the time period described in part 1, the total is 252 hours 13 minutes devoted to hockey on the C.B.C. French and English radio and television networks.


DUTY PAID COMMUNIST COUNTRIES ON GIFT PARCELS
Mr. Thompson: What sums have been paid annually, during the past five years, to the governments of Communist countries by Canadian residents as duty on parcels they are sending as gifts to residents in such countries?


Mrs. Fairclough:: No information.
Stand improvement	 20
Access roads	 20
Access roads	 25
Stand improvement	 12
Experimental wood cutting	 17
Access roads	 22
Access roads	 17
Stream improvement	 12
Stand improvement	 5
Total	 150


EARNINGS OF HOLDERS OF NAVIGATIONAL CERTIFICATES
Mr. Coates: 1.	What were the average earnings for the years 1960 and 1961 of holders, domiciled in Canada, of master of foreign-going navigational certificate (excluding pilots)?
2.	What were the average earnings for the years 1960 and 1961 of holders, domiciled in Canada, of home-trade navigational certificate (excluding pilots)?


James Alexander McBain: 1 and 2. The remuneration of the master of a ship is a matter of private arrangement between the shipowner and the master and is not reported to the Department of Transport.


NATO COUNCIL
Mr. Haidasz: During the recent NATO ministerial conference held in Paris, was any consideration given to the possible negotiation of a non-aggression treaty between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries, and, if so, what was the stand taken by Canada's delegation to the conference?


Mr. Green:: On December 17, 1962, I gave the house an account of the NATO December meeting. These NATO meetings are confidential and I do not think it appropriate to discuss what was said in Paris in greater detail.


LACOLLE, QUE.  IMMIGRATION FACILITIES
Mr. Stewart: Are immigration facilities available at Lacolle, Quebec and, if so, were and are these facilities provided by the government of Canada alone and, if not, who has co-operated or is co-operating with the government?


Frank Charles McGee: The immigration branch has offices in two locations in Lacolle, Quebec. The main office is on the second floor of the federal building. This accommodation is provided by the government of Canada alone. The other office is in the Delaware and

Questions
Hudson Railway station and its facilities are used for the civil and medical examination of immigrants travelling to Canada by rail from New York. The building is the property of the railroad. Recently, certain alterations were made in this building so that the medical examination (including X-ray) of these immigrants could be carried out. The cost of these alterations was borne by American Export Lines, Inc. The X-ray equipment was provided by the government of Canada through the Department of National Health and Welfare.


HOLIDAY WORK BY TUG AND DREDGE OFFICERS, MARITIME REGION
Mr. Stewart: Do any or all officers on tugs and dredges under the district engineer. Saint John, receive pay for work done on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, in connection with the safety of their craft and, if not, does the same practice prevail in the Charlottetown and Halifax divisions?


Mr. McCleave:: Yes, these officers do receive extra pay for work done on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays aboard these vessels. However if they undertake security watch only and no actual work is involved they do not receive pay over and above their normal remuneration.


ROADS TO RESOURCES, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Stewart: What was Canada's share of the cost of roads to resources built in Nova Scotia in (a) 1961-62, and (b) the period, April 1, 1962 to the present (c) on what projects was this money spent (d) how many miles of road was involved in each project and (e) what was the cost to Canada of each project?


Mr. Dinsdale:: Information not available, since no claim has as yet been received from the province of Nova Scotia for work on roads to resources undertaken by the province since April 1, 1961.


R.C.M.P. INTERVIEWS WITH UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND FACULTIES
Mr. Berger: 1. Are members of the R.C.M.P. engaged in interviewing students and faculty members at Canadian universities about the political views and political activities of other students and faculty members and, if so, (a) for how long have such interviews been taking place (b) what ranks are employed in conducting these interviews (c) what qualifications do they possess?
2.	What government departments and officials have access to the reports made by the R.C.M.P. in this connection?
3.	Are private persons and corporations supplied with any of the information obtained by the R.C.M.P., or do they have access to any of the reports made by the R.C.M.P. in connection with these investigations and, if so, under what conditions?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1. Members of the R.C.M.P. are not engaged in interviewing students and faculty members at Canadian universities about the political views and political activities of other students and faculty members.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


USE OF NUCLEAR ARMS ON MISSILES AND PLANES
Mr. Matheson: 1.	(a) When the government selected the Bomarc in September 1958, was the government aware that the maximum efficiency of this weapon depended upon the use of nuclear armament? (b) prior to acquiring the Bomarc in October 1961, did the government indicate to the U.S.A. or to NORAD that it was, or might be, unwilling to accept nuclear arms?
2.	(a) When the government selected the CF-104 in July 1959, did the government know that its proposed role depended upon the use of nuclear weapons? (b) prior to acquiring the CF-104 in March 1961, did the government indicate to its NATO allies or NATO H.Q. that it was, or might be, unwilling to accept nuclear arms?
3.	(a) When the government selected the "Honest John" in March 1960, did the government know that non-nuclear shells were impractical? (b) prior to acquiring the "Honest John" in August 1961, did the government indicate to its NATO allies or NATO H.Q. that it was, or might be, unwilling to accept nuclear arms?
4.	(a) When the government selected the CF-101B in June 1961, did the government know that its proposed role depended upon the use of nuclear weapons? (b) prior to acquiring the CF-101B in July 1961, did the government indicate to its NATO allies or NATO H.Q. that it was, or might be, unwilling to accept nuclear arms?


Mr. Harkness:: 1, 2, 3 and 4. (a) The government was aware that in each instance these weapon systems would reach their maximum effectiveness when armed with nuclear warheads or weapons.
(b) No.


RUSSIAN VESSELS IN BAY OF FUNDY
Mr. Dumoni: 1.	Has the government made any appraisal of the reasons for the recent presence of Russian fishing vessels in the bay of Fundy and, if so, was the visit of any military significance?
2.	Who first discovered the presence of the Russian vessels and to whom was it reported?
3.	By what officer of the Canadian armed services was the news of the presence of the vessels first announced and on whose authority was the announcement made?


Douglas Scott Harkness: 1. It is not the policy to make information of this nature public.
2.	By the captain of a Canadian commercial ferry who gave this information to the fisheries protection officer of the Department of Fisheries in Digby, N.S.
3.	The first announcement was not made by an officer of the Canadian armed forces.


APPEALS RESPECTING CIVIL SERVICE PROMOTIONAL COMPETITIONS
Mr. Caron: 1.	With respect to written or oral promotional competitions of the civil service commission, how many appeals were lodged (a) from April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960 (b) from April 1, 1960 to March 31, 1961 and (c) since April 1, 1961?
2.	In the case of the said appeals for each of the above mentioned years (a) in how many cases was the appeal granted and (b) in how many cases was the appeal rejected?
3.	How many of the said appeals have been made by French-speaking Canadians, and in how many cases (a) was the appeal granted and (b) was the appeal rejected?


George Ernest Halpenny: The civil service commission's records on appeals are maintained on a calendar year basis. These records indicate as follows:
1.	(a) January 1, 1959 to December 31, 1959, 554; (b) January 1, 1960 to December 31, 1960, 626; (c) January 1, 1961 to December 31, 1961, 758; (d) January 1, 1962 to December 31, 1962, 631.
2.	Number of appeals Upheld Not upheld
(a)	127	427(b)	140	486(c)	189	569(d)	153	4783.	This information is not available from the records kept.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. Munro: 1.	Has the Hamilton harbour commission within the last three years entered into any agreement or agreements with Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited with respect to the handling of goods and commodities and/or with respect to the sale of assets previously owned by the Hamilton harbour commission; and, if so, what were the terms and conditions of such agreement or agreements?
2.	Did the Hamilton Shipping Company Limited or its directors, shareholders or personnel, negotiate the terms and conditions of such agreement or agreements or otherwise deal with the Hamilton harbour commission prior to such negotiations or dealings being taken over by the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited; and, if so, what person or persons represented the Hamilton Shipping Company Limited prior to the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited taking over such negotiations or dealings; and, upon the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited taking over such negotiations or dealings, what person or persons represented the said Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited?
3.	Did any other person or persons enter negotiations or have dealings with the Hamilton harbour commission for and on behalf of the company later known as the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited and, if so, who was that person or persons?
4.	What person or persons during the three year period prior to September 30, 1962, appeared before the Hamilton harbour commission, negotiated with the Hamilton harbour commission, or made representations to the Hamilton harbour commission, or corresponded with the said commission on
27507-3-185
Questions
behalf of the Hamilton Shipping Company Limited and the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited, and what were the particulars of the matters dealt with as a result of such appearances, negotiations, representations or correspondence?
5.	Who were the directors, shareholders and executive personnel of the Hamilton Shipping Company Limited and the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited during the time any agreement or agreements above referred to were entered into between the Hamilton harbour commission and the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited?
6.	Prior to the entering into of any agreement or agreements between the Hamilton harbour commission and the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited, were the terms, conditions and stipulations as contained in such agreement or agreements, except any reference to moneys to accrue to the Hamilton harbour commission, let out to tender to any other person, persons, corporation or corporations, and, if so, who were such person, persons, corporation or corporations, and what were the tenders so submitted; what was the time and date upon which such tenders were required to be submitted to the Hamilton harbour commission?
7.	Was any other person, persons, corporation or corporations advised as to the clauses of any agreement or agreements entered into between the Hamilton harbour commission and the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited with the exception of any reference to moneys to accrue to the Hamilton harbour commission prior to the execution of any such agreement or agreements entered into between the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited and the Hamilton harbour commission; and, if so, who were such person, persons, corporation or corporations, and when were such person, persons, corporation or corporations advised of such clauses?
8.	Did any person, persons, corporation or corporations, other than the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited, communicate with the Hamilton harbour commission that such person, persons, corporation or corporations desired to negotiate an agreement similar in nature to any agreement or agreements entered into between the Hamilton harbour commission and the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited during the three year period prior to September 30, 1962; what were the dates and contents of such communications, and by whom were such communications made or on whose behalf were such communications made, and what were the dates and contents of the replies to such communications by the Hamilton harbour commission?
9.	Has any agreement, entered into between the Hamilton harbour commission and the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited at any time during the three year period prior to September 30, 1962, been altered, revised, renegotiated or renewed; what were the terms, conditions and clauses of any such agreement embodying any such revision, alteration, renegotiation or renewal respectively?
10.	Was any other person, persons, corporation or corporations advised or informed of any terms, conditions, clauses of such alteration, revision, renegotiation or renewal of such agreement or agreements entered into between the Hamilton harbour commission and the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited at any time during the three year period prior to September 30, 1962; what person, persons, corporation or corporations were so advised or informed and when; what was the content, or advice given or rendered to such person, persons, corporation or corporations by the Hamilton harbour commission, with respect to the terms of such revision, alteration, renegotiation or renewal of such agreement or agreements?
11.	What person, persons, corporation or corporations appeared before the board at any time during the three year period prior to September 30,

Questions
1962, with respect to any revision, alteration, renegotiation or renewal of any such agreement or agreements entered into between the Hamilton harbour commission and the Hamilton Terminal Operators Limited?
12.	What was the profit accruing to the Hamilton harbour commission from the operation of the Wellington street terminal for the year 1959, and what was the traffic by total tonnage in and out of the said terminal for the year 1959. and by whom was the said terminal operated during the year 1959?
13.	What was the profit accruing to the Hamilton harbour commission from the operation of the Wellington street terminal for the year 1960, and what was the traffic by total tonnage m and out of the said terminal for the year 1960, and by whom was the said terminal operated during the year 1960?
14.	What was the profit or loss accruing to the Hamilton harbour commission from the operation of the Wellington street terminal for the year 1961, and what was the traffic by total tonnage in and out of the said terminal during the year 1961, and by whom was the said terminal operated during the year 1961?
15.	What was the name of each and every trucking or transport firm which carried tonnage out of the Wellington street terminal and the amount of tonnage carried by each during the years 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961?
16.	Has the Minister of Transport or any other member of the government or the federal cabinet received any communication, written or otherwise, from any trucking or transport firm with respect to the tonnage carried out of the Wellington street terminal during the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, or 1962; from whom and when was such communication received, and what was the content of such communication; was there any reply or replies to such communication or communications; when was the reply or replies made, and what was the content of such replies?
17.	Was any commissioner, member of the Hamilton harbour commission, either a director, shareholder, executive officer or employee of any transport firm or company during the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 or 1962; what was the name of such transport firm of which the said commissioner was a director, shareholder, executive officer or employee; what was the percentage of the total tonnage carried out of the Wellington street terminal by such transport firm during the years 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962?
18.	What was the percentage of the total tonnage carried out of the Wellington street terminal by the following companies: Western Freight Lines Limited, Overland Express Limited, Husband Transport Limited, Inter-city Truck Lines Limited, Howell Forwarding Co. Ltd., Hanson Transport Limited, Smith Transport Limited, Armstrong Cartage and Consolidated Truck Lines Limited, during the years 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961?


James Alexander McBain: Parts 1 to 15 and parts 17 and 18 relate to the administration of the Hamilton harbour commissioners and the information is not available in the Department of Transport.
Part 16. No.
(Translation):


WATER AND SEWER SERVICES AT ST. SYLVESTRE RADAR BASE
Mr. Dumont: 1.	What is the name of the contractor who installed the sewage and water system for the employees at the radar base at St. Sylvestre?
[Mr. Munro.l
2.	How many times has this work been recommenced?
3.	What is the total cost of this work to the federal government?
4.	Would it have been advantageous to have carried out this work in the summer?
5.	When a contractor undertakes such work, is the efficient working of these sewers his responsibility for at least five years?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: 1. Nadeau & Freres Limitee, Saint-Patrice de Beaurivage, P.Q.
2.	Corrective measures were taken with regard to part of this work.
3.	The present amount of the contract is $155,660.41. The contractor has filed a claim for additional payment, and this is now being considered.
4.	Under normal conditions, it would have been preferable that such work be carried out in the summertime. However, the contractor was required to go ahead during the winter months so that these services might be available for the installation of prefabricated houses scheduled for delivery in the spring.
5.	Yes.
(Text):


FULL AND PART TIME PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT IN PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: How many of the psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians, and dentists, employed by the federal government work full time at the penitentiaries, and of those who work part time, how many hours per week does each work in the penitentiaries?


Thomas Miller Bell: The psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians, and dentists are employed in the penitentiaries as follows; Psychologists: 19, full time, Psychiatrists: 8, part time, 15 hours per week. Physicians: 4, full time; 7, part time, 15 hours per week. Dentists: 8, part time, 15 hours per week.


VOCATIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL INSTRUCTORS IN PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: What qualifications are required by the vocational training instructors and industrial instructors who are employed by the penitentiaries?


Thomas Miller Bell: Vocational training intructors (all trades). Qualifications: Technical school graduation, completion of apprenticeship type training with at least five years' experience at journeyman level. Experience as a foreman or a supervisor desirable. Training in modern teaching methods and ability to plan, organize and teach courses in the relevant trade.
Industrial instructor (all trades). Qualifications: Grade 10 education, technical school training preferred. Completed apprenticeship with at least four years' practical experience at journeyman level, preferably with some experience in a supervisory capacity.


ON THE JOB TRAINING OF GUARDS IN PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: Who conducts the on the job training of guards hired to work in the penitentiaries?


Thomas Miller Bell: The on the
job training of guards hired to work in penitentiaries is conducted by the squad leaders (keepers) under the over-all guidance of the staff training and safety officer.


GRANTS FOR SOCIAL WELFARE TRAINING
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money has been allocated under the welfare training grants to help pay for the education of people desiring to improve their qualifications in the field of social work?
2.	How many people are now at recognized professional schools under the provisions of these grants?
3.	What are the amounts of the bursaries provided?
4.	Has any money been allocated for research projects in the field of social service?
5.	Have any plans been developed for research into appropriate use of sub-professional staff in the field of social welfare?


Arza Clair Casselman: 1. $225,000 will be available under the national welfare program in the current fiscal year for general welfare and professional training. It is proposed that this amount be increased to $450,000 for the fiscal year 1963-64.
These funds will be made available for general welfare projects, teaching and field instruction projects, as well as for bursaries, staff training grants, scholarships, fellowships and staff development projects.
2.	Funds were not available to initiate this program until the supplementary estimates were passed by the house on December 12, 1962. Following approval of funds by parliament, order in council P.C. 1963-15/1 was passed on January 3, 1963, setting out the nature and scope of the program under which these funds are to be made available. This information has been transmitted to the provincial welfare departments and to the schools of social work and projects for educational training in professional schools are now being received.
3.	The welfare grants program makes provision for a provincial-federal scheme of bursaries and assistance for staff training. The value of the bursaries will be determined by the provincial welfare authorities with the federal government sharing up to a maximum of $1,500 for a year plus $500 for dependants. The federal government will also share the cost with the provinces of staff training grants
27507-3-185i
Questions
designed to increase the qualifications of welfare personnel now employed in welfare programs.
Twenty welfare scholarships are to be offered by the federal government in 196364, valued up to $2,000 for a year. These will be for graduate study in social work and will be offered to those persons who have completed their undergraduate studies with high academic standing and who have been accepted for a course of full time study by a school of social work. Ten welfare fellowships are also to be offered by the federal government in 1963-64, valued up to $4,000 for a year plus $500 for dependants. These will be for graduate study at Canadian and foreign universities and will be offered to persons who have demonstrated leadership qualities and ability of a high order in the fields of administration, teaching, and research in welfare in Canada. These fellowships will be available to persons holding a master's degree in social work.
4.	$25,000 will be available in the current fiscal year for welfare research work. It is proposed that this amount be increased to $50,000 for the fiscal year 1963-64.
A research review committee and members for research review panels have been asked to serve in connection with the research grant program. It is anticipated that a considerable number of research projects will be available for consideration and evaluation within the next several weeks.
5.	There is considerable interest across Canada in the question of the use of subprofessional staff in the field of social welfare. There is a national welfare organization, the commission on education and personnel, associated with the Canadian Welfare Council, which is preparing a research project relating to various aspects of the effective utilization of welfare personnel. The department is hopeful that this organization will include in its project this important matter of the utilization of sub-professional staff.


ADVANCES TO WORKERS IN INDIAN CRAFTS
Mr. Brown: Has the government made any provisions for advancing money to Indian-craft workers in wintertime for making objects to be sold to summer tourists?


Frank Charles McGee: Yes. The Indian affairs branch has in its appropriation funds to provide assistance to Indian handicrafts producers. The two major forms of assistance extended by the branch under its handicrafts development program are the provision of raw materials and supplies, and the purchase of finished craft products for resale during the primary selling season.

Questions


CANADIANS LEAVING TO TAKE UP U.S. RESIDENCE
Mr. Brown: How many Canadians left Canada during the past year to take up permanent residence in the United States?


Mr. Nesbitt:: Total immigrant aliens admitted to the United States, whose country of last permanent residence was Canada, for the calendar year 1961: 45,209.
Source:	United States Department of
Justice; immigration and naturalization service.


DISAPPEARANCE OF CANADIAN NAVAL OFFICER
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did a Royal Canadian Navy officer disappear last summer into the Mediterranean sea area?
2.	Was he found and, if so, where?
3.	What were the actions taken to recover such a lost officer, and what disciplinary action was taken?
4.	Has the navy an explanation for the reasons that may have led to the disappearance?


Douglas Scott Harkness: 1. In April, 1962, an officer of the Royal Canadian Navy was absent without authority from his ship when the latter sailed from Portsmouth, England, to Canada. His whereabouts were at the time unknown.
2.	Yes, he appeared at the Canadian consulate in Hamburg, Germany, on 28 November, 1962, requesting papers for a visit to South Africa, and was then identified as the missing officer.
3.	A warrant was issued for his arrest as a suspected deserter and suitable steps were taken to trace and apprehend him. He was
arrested at Hamburg by the Canadian Army provost corps. He was tried at Halifax, Nova Scotia, by general court martial on 12 December, 1962, on a charge of desertion under section 79 of the National Defence Act. He was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and is now undergoing this sentence in a civil prison in Nova Scotia.
4.	It is understood that the reasons were personal and not connected with his service in the Royal Canadian Navy.
(Translation):


NAVIGATION AIDS TO MAGDALEN ISLANDS
Mr. Sauve: Is it the intention of the government to instal on the Magdalen islands, during the spring of 1963 (a) a fight buoy at the entrance of Aubert harbour (b) a fight buoy at the place known as "Southwest of Old Harry" (c) a lighthouse at Gros Cap (west point) (d) coloured fights at the entrance signals of Aubert harbour?


James Alexander McBain: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) Yes.
(Text):


FEDERAL, PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL REVENUES
Mr. Sauve: For each fiscal year from April 1, 1930 to March 31, 1962, what were the total amounts of the revenues of the federal government, of the provincial governments, and of the municipalities (a) in absolute figures (b) as a percentage of the annual total of all revenue for each level of government?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I would refer the hon. member to the following statement:

Questions


NET GENERAL REVENUE-ALL CANADIAN GOVERNMENTS
[Stage Direction]
After Elimination of Intergovernment Transfers'
For the fiscal year ended nearest to December 31 Federal		Percentage of Total	Provincial	Percentage of Total	Municipal	Percentage of Total	Total
			(millions of dollars)				
I9602	
6,416	64.6	2,016	20.3	1,504	15.1	9,9361959	
5,736	62.8	1,947	21.3	1,455	15.9	9,1381958	
5,066	62.8	1,709	21.2	1,294	16.0	8,0691957	
5,396	65.6	1,041	19.9	1,180	14.5	8,2171956	
5,441	68.9	1,396	17.7	1,058	13.4	7,8951955	67.9	1,262	18.4	943	13.7	6,8731954	
4,364	69.3	1,055	16.8	876	13.9	6,2951953	
4,650	72.0	993	15.3	811	12.7	6,4541952	
4,575	73.4	924	14.8	737	11.8	6,2361951	
3,936	71.0	949	17.1	660	11.9	5,5451950	
3,052	68.7	828	18.7	560	12.6	4,4401949	
2,545	67.2	733	19.3	512	13.5	3,7901948	
2,715	71.1	642	16.8	463	12.1	3,8201947	
2,840	74.9	540	14.2	413	10.9	3,7931940	
2,973	79.3	401	10.7	375	10.0	3,7491945	
2,957	81.6	322	8.9	345	9.5	3,6241943	
2,582	81.4	250	7.9	341	10.7	3,1731941	
1,440	69.5	302	14.6	331	15.9	2,0731939	48.7	236	21.9	317	29.4	1,0771937	
502	48.9	221	21.5	304	29.6	1,0271933	
315	42.4	133	18.0	294	39.6	742_	1 The provincial and municipal government totals exclude both unconditional grants or subsidies and grants
in aid and shared cost contributions, received from the senior levels of governments.
* Estimated.
Note: Data not available in comparative form for 1930, 1931, 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1938, 1940, 1942, 1944 and 1961.
(Translation):

Mr. Sauve: For each fiscal year from April 1,	1950 to
March 31, 1962, what was the amount of each grant made by the Canadian maritime commission or any department of the federal government for the transportation of freight and/or passengers on any ship (indicating the name of the owners) in service between the Magdalen islands and any other port in Canada?


James Alexander McBain: Part of the answer to this question will be found in the reply to question 1,209. In addition, a grant has been made to the following shipping company:
The Sea and Air Transport Co-operative, for the regular transportation of freight between the Magdalen islands and Halifax, as follows: in 1960-61, $6,667; in 1961-62, $30,000.
(Text):


NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON CANADIAN SOIL
Mr. Sauve: Are there any nuclear weapons on Canadian soil or on any territory north of the 49th parallel where American troops are stationed?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are no nuclear weapons on Canadian soil.


FISHERMEN'S INDEMNITY PLAN, MAGDALEN ISLANDS
Mr. Sauve: As of March 31, 1962, how many ships from Iles-de-la-Madeleine were insured under the provisions of the fishermen's indemnity plan, referred to on page 9 of the fifteenth report of the fisheries prices support board; and for the years 1960, 1961, and 1962, how many fishermen from Iles-de-la-Madeieine received an indemnity under this plan?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: As of March 31, 1962, 186 fishing vessels in Iles-de-la-Madeleine were insured under the fishermen's indemnity plan. The number of fishermen who received indemnity in respect of loss of or damage to fishing vessels during the calendar years 1960, 1961 and 1962, are:
No. of fishermen
Year	receiving indemnity
1960	1
1961	Nil
1962	Nil


NET MESHING DIAMETER, GULP OF ST. LAWRENCE FISHERIES
Mr. Sauve: 1.	Does the government intend to propose, to those countries whose ships carry on fishing activities in the gulf of St. Lawrence, an international agreement designed to limit the diameter of the net meshing?

Questions
2.	Does the government ensure that the gulf of St. Lawrence is patrolled in order that Canadian fishermen abide by the limits set on the diameter of net meshing and if so, how is this done?


John Angus MacLean: 1. Regulations are in effect for this purpose pursuant to the provisions of the international convention for the northwest Atlantic fisheries to which Canada is a contracting party.
2. Yes, by water patrol, but principally by checking of nets on board when fishing vessels are in port.


FORT CHURCHILL, MAN.-BAY BUS LINE
Mr. Douglas: Has an application been received from Mr. D. F. Purdy to operate the Bay bus line within Fort Churchill and, if so, what reply has been made?


Mr, Harkness:: Yes, and Mr. Purdy has been advised the matter is under investigation.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Peters: 1.	How many persons were registered for unemployment insurance in categories suitable for temporary employment by the Post Office Department to handle Christmas mail in the current year (a) in Canada and (b) in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver?
2.	How many of these vacancies were filled upon request from the Post Office Department?


Mr. Hales:: 1. It is not possible to segregate from data available, persons registered for unemployment insurance in categories suitable for temporary employment with the Post Office Department to handle Christmas mail.
2. During the current year a total of 43,074 persons registered for employment at local offices of NES were referred to the Post Office Department for employment to handle the
Name of Company	Amount
Atlas Titanium Ltd.	$ 87,750
Jarry Hydraulics Ltd. The DeHavilland Aircraft of	51,072
Canada Ltd.	456,075
RCA Victor Co., Ltd. National Semi - Conductors	77,500
Ltd.	46,000
Northern Electric Co. Ltd. Hawker Siddeley Canada Ltd. (Avro Aircraft Divi-	422,833
sion)	208,295
Aviation Electric Ltd.	43,652
IMr. Sauve.]
Christmas mail. Of these 33,033 were accepted for this work by the department. It is understood, however, that a number of these did not report when actually called to work by the post office.



Mr. Peters: 1.	How many temporary employees are hired in Canada for the handling of the Christmas mail during the current year, and how many in each of the following cities: Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver?
2.	How many of these temporary employees were requested from the national employment service?
3.	How many were supplied from this source (a) in Canada (b) in the above named cities?
4.	How many were recruited from other sources (a) in Canada (b) in each of the above named cities?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: 1. 50,241-Halifax, 770; Montreal, 9,550; Ottawa, 1,920; Toronto, 7,300; Winnipeg, 2,053; Regina, 510; Edmonton, 1,685 Calgary, 1,359; Vancouver, 3,878.
2.	33,147.
3.	(a) 31,625. (b)-Halifax, 740; Montreal, 5,150; Ottawa, 1,624; Toronto, 1,900 Winnipeg, 2,053; Regina, 470; Edmonton, 1,685; Calgary, 1,304; Vancouver, 3,802.
4.	(a) 18,616. (b)-Halifax, 30; Montreal, 4,400; Ottawa, 296; Toronto, 5,400; Winnipeg, nil; Regina, 40; Edmonton, nil; Calgary, 55; Vancouver, 76.


INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE GRANTS, DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	What is the total amount of money committed by the defence research board to industrial research assistance programs during the current fiscal year?
2.	What is the name of the company and the amount and purpose of the grant in each case?


Douglas Scott Harkness: 1. $5,030,140.
Purpose of Grant
Metallic halide dissociation research. Welding research on high strength steels.
STOL aircraft research.
Microwave properties of plasmas.
Research on photoconductive cells.
Study of semi-conductor materials for solid state devices.
Powered lift system. Wear and friction.

Amount
Orders for Returns Purpose of Grant
Name of Company
Consolidated Mining & Smelting Co. of Canada
Ltd.	120,000
Honeywell Controls Ltd.	122,700
Canadian Westinghouse Co., Ltd.	175,000
Erie Resistor of Canada Ltd.	50,000
Dominion Magnesium Ltd.	32,100
Consolidated Mining & Smelting Co. of Canada Ltd.	47,820
Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd.	303,000
Geo-Met. Reactors Ltd.	47,600
Central Dynamics Ltd.	58,000
Ferranti - Packard Electric Ltd.	185,500
Ferranti - Packard Electric Ltd.	55,500
Canadian Aviation Electronics Ltd.	25,500
RCA Victor Co., Ltd.	215,000
Canada Iron Foundries Ltd.	72,450
Canadian Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Co., Ltd.	25,000
CTS of Canada Ltd.	203,000
Canadair Ltd.	60,919
Atlas Steels Ltd.	42,500
Canadair Ltd.	33,374
Canadian Aviation Electronics Ltd.	122,000
Canadian General Electric Ltd.	1,380,000
Ferranti - Packard Electric Ltd.	260,000


CHANGES IN MAIL SERVICE, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Slewarl: t. Has any change in mail service to North Brookfield, Pleasant River, and New Elm, Nova Scotia, been made since November 1, 1962, and, if so, what change?
2. Are any changes contemplated in that service?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: 1. Yes. (a) Effective,
November 1,	1962, delivery of mail on
South Brookfield rural route No. 1, which serves the North Brookfield, Pleasant River and New Elm area, was changed from afternoon to morning, (b) Effective December 1, 1962, service on this rural route was changed back to afternoon delivery.
Research on intermetallic compounds.
Thin film circuit techniques.
Research on electroluminescence for display systems.
Radio frequency suppression filters. Improved magnesium die casting alloys.
Zinc die-casting alloys research.
Dispersion strengthening and flame spraying with powdered metals.
Production methods of strategic ferroalloys.
Research into coded data processing.
Microconnections for microminiature circuits.
Prevention of errors in data transmission systems.
Feasibility study on an electrolytic integrator.
Solid state research in support of satellite telemetry systems.
Impact resistance of modular iron at low temperatures.
Annular combustion chamber research.
Research on non-linear active devices.
Crack propagation in panels and aircraft structures.
Effects of uranium in aircraft quality steels.
Metals fabrication and processing research.
Magnetic anomaly detection research.
Research on signal processing.
Cryogenic research program.
2. The department is now looking into the possibility of providing an earlier afternoon delivery of mail to this area.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


DROWNING DEATHS


Mr. Brown: 1.	How many deaths, in Canada, by drowning, were attributable to the use of snorkels in each of the years 1959, 1960, and 1961?
2.	Is any consideration being given by the government to the prohibition of the sale of snorkels?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.

Orders for Returns



ST. JOHN AMBULANCE CERTIFICATES

Mr. Matheson: How many St. John Ambulance certificates were issued during the year 1961 to the following categories of personnel (a) army, navy and air force (b) Royal Canadian Mounted Police (c) penitentiary staff (d) emergency measures organization (e) other civil servants (f) inmates of federal institutions?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.



MINIMUM WAGES IN MUNICIPAL WORKS

Mr. Perron: Do the terms of agreements entered into by the federal government with respect to winter or other works carried out at a municipal level specify a minimum wage, and, if so, has the government investigated any complaints or irregularities relating to such agreements?



UNIVERSITY STUDENTS APPLYING FOR ENGINEERING POSITIONS

Mr. Rinfrei: 1.	In 1961, how many university students and graduates were candidates in the examinations held by the civil service commission for positions of civil engineer, electrical engineer, and mechanical engineer?
2.	How many candidates were successful in the examinations?
3.	How many candidates came from the universities of Laval, Montreal, and Sherbrooke and, of these, how many were successful?
4.	How many candidates who were successful in the examinations were accepted for employment by the civil service commission?
5.	How many, among those who accepted employment, came from the university of Laval, the University of Montreal, and the university of Sherbrooke?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.



UNIVERSITY STUDENTS APPLYING FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES POSITIONS

Mr. Rinfret: 1.	In 1961, how many university students and graduates, were candidates in the examinations held by the civil service commission for graduate specialists in the biological sciences?
2.	How many candidates were successful in the examinations?
3.	How many candidates came from the universities of Laval, Montreal, and Sherbrooke and, of these, how many were successful?
4.	How many candidates who were successful in examinations for these situations were accepted for employment by the civil service commission?
5.	How many among those who were accepted for employment came from the universities of Laval, Montreal, and Sherbrooke?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.



UNIVERSITY STUDENTS APPLYING FOR PHYSICAL SCIENCES POSITIONS

Mr. Rinfrei: 1. In 1961, how many university students or graduates applied to the civil service commission with a view to obtaining employment requiring training in the field of physical sciences?

2.	How many candidates were successful in the examinations?
3.	How many candidates come from the universities of Laval, Montreal, and Sherbrooke and, of these, how many were successful?
4.	How many among those who succeeded in the examinations accepted employment with the civil service commission?
5.	How many among those who accepted employment came from the university of Laval, the University of Montreal, and the university of Sherbrooke?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.



RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT SHELTERS, CHAPLEAU CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many radioactive fall-out shelters were built in Chapleau constituency in 1961 and 1962?
2.	What is the name of the one, or the several, contractors who built them?
3.	How much did each of the shelters cost?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.



PILOTAGE SERVICE, LES ESCOUMINS, QUE.

Mr. Dumont: 1.	Were the boilers in the vessel Citadel in good condition at the time of its sale?
2.	What were the operating costs of the Citadel for the year 1961 on pilot service at Les Escou-mins?
3.	What accounts for the difference in construction costs between the sister pilot boats Nos. 9 and 10, and is boat No. 9 considered to be of better quality than boat No. 10?
4.	Can the Department of Transport certify the use of pilot boats Nos. 9 and 10 for navigation during icing conditions prevalent in the winter season?
5.	Was any consideration given to the construction of double hulled pilot boats instead of single hulled models?
6.	How much does the Department of Transport charge shipping companies per vessel for the taking on and letting off, of pilots at Les Escoumins; what was the total amount collected during the year 1961, and who acquires this revenue?
7.	Does this scale exist in other pilotage services and, if so, in which ones and under what circumstances?
8.	How many qualified St. Lawrence pilots are employed in the Quebec and Montreal districts, and what is the mother tongue of each?
9.	What are the respective salaries and duties of the following officials: F. S. Slocombe, Booths, D. R. Jones, A. Cumin, Catinus and J. Gendron?


James Alexander McBain: Return tabled.



COMBINES ACT INVESTIGATIONS AND CONVICTIONS

Mr. Douglas: 1.	Since January 1,	1945, what investigations
have been carried out under the terms of the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 314, or the former combines investigation act or under any amendments thereto, up to the present time, and what are the names of the firms, corporations or individuals investigated?
2.	What convictions have been registered since January 1, 1945, giving names of the firms, corporations or individuals concerned, under the statutes set out in part 1, or under the provisions of sections 498 and 498a of the Criminal Code, chapter

36, R.S.C. 1927, or under section 411 or 412 of the Criminal Code, 2 and 3 Elizabeth 2nd, c. 51, and amendments thereto, and what penalties were imposed in each case?


Thomas Miller Bell: Return tabled. FEDERAL WORKS, LAKE ST. JOHN CONSTITUENCY


Mr. Lessard (Lake St.: John):
1.	What is the nature, place and value of federal works under way or completed in the constituency of Lake St. John during 1962?
2.	What is the nature, place and estimated value of federal works at present under study for the constituency of Lake St. John?
3.	What amount did the Department of Public Works spend in each of the ten provinces of Canada during 1960-61, and to November 1, 1962?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has come to any decision regarding the setting up of a special committee on defence policy.


John George Diefenbaker: The view of the government, as was the view expressed by the hon. gentleman himself on more than one occasion, has always been that questions of policy are for the government to determine. We have no intention, therefore, to set up a committee on defence policy.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION RESPECTING DIVORCE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Cresiohl (Cartier):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government will introduce legislation or take other steps to solve the impasse which parliament and the country is facing as a result of the blockade of the divorce bills now before parliament?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is receiving consideration among the representatives of the three parties.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister what action is being taken to meet the suggestions of the provinces and other interested parties with 27507-3-186
Inquiries of the Ministry regard to railway abandonment in Canada and the recommendations of the MacPherson commission report.


John George Diefenbaker: The premiers of the three western provinces asked for a meeting with the government of Canada for the purpose of placing before the government their views on the abandonment of railway facilities in western Canada. We received a message on the 10th of this month. On the 11th we advised that at that time we did not think a meeting would be beneficial. Since then a bill has been completed in its draft form. It will not be introduced until these provincial governments have an opportunity of presenting their views. An indication has been given that we are prepared to meet with the premiers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta on January 28.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES SUGGESTED ROYAL COMMISSION TO STUDY CANADIAN CULTURAL SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him if the government has taken a decision with reference to the inquiry on bilingualism and biculturalism, as proposed in this house by my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: I think this is a question which should be dealt with at some length. I will make a statement tomorrow before the orders of the day, if the house will allow setting out the view of the government on this question and also on the alternative thereto which the government intends to support, namely, the bringing together in convocation of the representatives of the various provinces of Canada, believing, as this government does, that matters as important as this, which touch on the constitutional development of our country, must be considered in consultation on the basis of a spirit of unity.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the hon. gentleman any information to give the house with respect to the most interesting announcement recently by Premier Khrushchev with

Inquiries of the Ministry regard to his giving favourable consideration to on-site inspection of nuclear tests by the use of what are termed black boxes?


Howard Charles Green: Within the last day or two there has been made public an exchange of letters between President Kennedy and Chairman Khrushchev on this particular subject. They may turn out to be of great importance and, if the house so wishes, these letters could be printed as an appendix to Hansard.
Briefly, the present position is that an understanding seems to have been reached on the principle that a test ban covering underground tests should be verified by a control system including (i) national detection systems; (ii) automatic seismic stations in various areas, including the territory of the nuclear powers, which would be serviced by international personnel; and (iii) a certain number of on-site inspections. The main point remaining to be dealt with is the number of on-site inspections which would be permitted. The U.S.S.R. is suggesting two or three and the United States is suggesting eight or ten. Negotiations are continuing in Washington, however, and we hope that these matters can be settled without delay. I would point out that representatives of the United Kingdom are to be sitting in on the talks tomorrow.
An agreement on this vital subject may possibly be within sight. We have repeatedly emphasized the crucial importance of a test ban treaty both from the standpoint of human health and as a first step toward curbing the armaments race. The simple fact of east-west agreement in this field would also provide a significant psychological impetus toward wider agreement on disarmament and perhaps other issues. We are convinced that President Kennedy, Prime Minister Macmillan and Chairman Khrushchev recognize these facts, and that outstanding differences will be judged in the light of the immense gains which a treaty ending nuclear weapons tests would bring to all mankind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret that following the reply given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs I omitted to ask leave of the house for the insertion in Hansard of certain communications to which the minister referred. He asked that they be printed as an appendix to Hansard. Does the hon. minister have that leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of documents referred to above, see Appendix "C".]
[Mr. Herridge.l


COLOMBO PLAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the secretary for external affairs. A former Colombo plan administrator has criticized the Canadian government for reducing its contribution to the plan. Can the minister inform the house if it is the intention of the government to bring Canada's contribution up to the level of former years?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think in view of the fact that the hon. member is asking the minister to comment in some form or other upon the statement of a person outside this house he will recognize that his question is out of order.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, notice of which has been given. Has the minister received from the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur a request for the designation of the united cities as one postal area and, if so, has the government given any consideration to this proposal?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have heard not only from these two municipalities but from the chambers of commerce connected with them, and the matter is under study.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG    REPORTED TRANSFER OF REPAIR WORK TO MONTREAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the discussions which took place in Winnipeg during the Christmas recess concerning the proposed transfer of the T.C.A. overhaul base from Winnipeg, has the minister a statement to make as to whether or not the government is looking into this matter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, the matter is being looked into. We are anticipating the arrival of a delegation from the provincial government

and interested residents of Manitoba to meet with us, I think next week, to discuss the matter.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries, of which I have just now given him notice. I would ask if he would agree to undertake to make a statement to the house in the next few days regarding the position of the north Pacific international fisheries treaty and the amendments which are proposed thereto?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, this will depend upon the sequence of future events. I will certainly be making a statement in this regard on the estimates of my department, but it is possible that I might make a statement before that depending on circumstances.


INQUIRY AS TO PROTECTION OF WEST COAST FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coasi-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. During the recent discussions on Canadian-Japanese trade in Tokyo was any consideration given to the urgent need to protect the halibut and herring fisheries on the west coast of British Columbia?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, a useful discussion was had between myself and my colleagues and our opposite numbers in the Japanese government in Tokyo, as has already been reported by the Minister of Justice. The herring and halibut fisheries of the Pacific coast of North America are under the north Pacific international fisheries convention, and that convention has been in existence now for almost ten years. There has been no change in that convention. Certain recommendations which were made recently by the international north Pacific fisheries commission are in conformity with the terms of the treaty.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister of northern affairs. In view of recent 27507-3-1864
Inquiries of the Ministry disclosures that the level of strontium 90 and cesium 132 has reached dangerous proportions in parts of northern Canada, what steps has the government taken to protect the health of Canada's Eskimo population and of other citizens inhabiting the area?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the department has taken the problem under consideration. We have already had discussions with the Department of National Health and Welfare on this matter. There is no positive information available other than reports from newspapers, and I can assure the hon. member that we are trying to get the actual facts.


LIEFCORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether, in view of further reports of the serious side effects of the drug liefcort, the minister has requested Dr. Liefmann to stop manufacturing this drug.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed one or two very recent reports about this matter, and we are looking into the subject.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister be in a position to tell us whether it is true that General Norstad has been nominated the chief defence adviser of the Canadian Liberal party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that one requires any comment.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arihur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the comments reported in the press to have been made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate concerning the proceedings in this house immediately after 4.55 p.m. on December 19. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has under consideration any explanation or apology to those "inexperienced M.P.'s" whom the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asserts he so cleverly tricked at that time.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is trying to fish in somewhat troubled waters. Since we have heard a great deal about fishing this afternoon, I think we will now put away the gear.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATION AT MINISTERIAL MEETING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house who will be the Canadian representatives at the forthcoming ministerial meeting of the contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I will report to the house as soon as possible on that matter.
(Translation):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschateleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the considerable increase in the number of unemployed, does the government intend to convene the committee on industrial relations immediately?
(Text):


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the last dominion bureau of statistics figure the hon. member refers to shows a rise in unemployment mainly in those engaged in seasonal industry. This figure was taken one month later than the previous year. Those who are engaged in computing these figures and assessing the situation advise me that if this same survey had been taken at the same time as it was last year, then it would have shown a decrease in unemployment by some thirty to forty thousand from the year previous. (Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In addition to the winter works program, will the government introduce other immediate measures to help the unemployed?
(Text):


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, those who are now unemployed are those engaged in seasonal industry. They have been in that same category in years gone by, and I am sure that if their desire is to remain in seasonal industry they will be unemployed during this period of time when that industry is not functioning.

(Translation):


Mr. Dumonf:: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Could the Minister of Labour tell us how many unemployed are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits at the present time?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that his question has to do with information which the minister would not have on hand. I would therefore advise him to put his question on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Is it the government's intention to increase the tax exemptions in order to relieve the Canadian small wage earners?


Mr. Speaker:: This is not only a matter of government policy but also a budget matter. The hon. member will agree, I think, that his question, at this time, is contrary to the rules of this house.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: My question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Could the minister tell us when the directors of the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation will be appointed?


Mr. Sevigny:: Within a few days.
(Text):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Horace A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister and through him, because I think they are also involved, to the Minister of Transport or the Department of Transport, the Department of Agriculture, and perhaps even the Department of Public Works. I should like to ask him when he intends to introduce legislation to provide for additional feed grain storage in eastern Canada and in British Columbia, as was anticipated in the speech from the throne.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what we indicated in the speech from the throne will be carried out. As the hon. member knows, the volume of business before the house now denies my allocating any time in the future for the consideration of this particular matter. It is important. We hope that we will get around to it very shortly, but I can say only that that depends on the co-operation of all hon. members in the implementation of the program which is before the house.
(Translation):


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or, in his absence, to one of his parliamentary secretaries.
Is the announced construction of grain elevators to serve 40 Quebec ridings at a cost of $3 million to be the only such project for eastern Canada and for the benefit of farmers?


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be informed of the extraordinary legislation which will be announced by the minister himself in due course.


Bernard Dumont: I hope it will not take ten years.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No. You now have a progressive government.
(Text):



REPORTED INTENTION TO CURTAIL RECORD OF PRODUCTION PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Lamoureux (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or to his parliamentary secretary. In view of current reports that the government plans to curtail the record of production testing program for dairy cattle, can the minister tell the house whether he is planning to limit or abolish this very essential service?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister would wish to reply to that question. He will be back in the house tomorrow.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in order to satisfy our insatiable
Inquiries of the Ministry curiosity and to bring us up to date, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Has he any further information to give the house with respect to meetings with Premier Bennett of British Columbia in connection with the Columbia development, or are any meetings proposed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there have been no meetings with Premier Bennett since this question was last asked in the house, and none has been arranged.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; this is the most exercise I have had since before we adjourned. I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I asked this question in December of the Prime Minister, and the suggestion was that we wait till the minister returned. Is the government pushing ahead with an estimated $1 billion program of converting over 4,000 public buildings into community fall-out shelters, as has been reported by the minister to the press?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the minister never at any time reported any such thing to the press. I saw a press report mentioning some figure of $1 billion and so forth which I was very surprised to see. When the dominion-provincial conference on emergency measures was held here some few weeks before Christmas we had considerable discussion about the matter of providing fall-out shelters. We had particularly a discussion on the amount of work which had been done in surveying the capability of existing buildings as to their capability of providing fall-out protection. I refer particularly to government buildings including, dominion, provincial and in some cases municipal buildings. At that time I stated that as far as we were concerned this survey was fairly well completed, that I hoped the provinces and municipalities would complete their buildings, and that we were having estimates made as to what the cost would be of improving the fall-out capabilities of these buildings. That is as far as I went.

Inquiries of the Ministry


David James Walker: May I take it that the emphasis put in this news report is not in keeping with what the minister had in mind?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. This mention of the billion dollars was a great surprise to me. I had never heard any estimate of that amount in connection with this program if it is carried out.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I wish to ask the minister a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether any funds available to the government of Canada are being expended on new construction for fall-out shelter purposes?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that I know what the hon. member means. Some of the buildings being constructed at the present time are being constructed in a way which gives a very good degree of fall-out protection in their basements and so on. The only buildings which are being built, however, and which are designed particularly for protection against fall-out are ones for emergency measures and military headquarters of various kinds.
(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Does the minister approve of the high political patronage policy which is being carried out at present in certain ridings represented by members of the opposition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will undoubtedly agree that he is not seeking information but merely making a statement.
(Text):



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister tell the house why action was not taken in the past month to set up the Atlantic provinces development board which in early December was regarded as an urgent matter?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. gentleman understands that with so
[Mr. Harkness.)

many matters of very urgent public importance, it was impossible to get everything done at once. However, if he will contain himself I am sure that in a day or two he will be satisfied.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, X should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the fact that there are still on the trains between Montreal and Chicoutimi employees who speak only one language-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must know that his question is out of order at this time.



INQUIRY AS TO INVESTIGATION INTO PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has received an interim report from Mr. Donald Gordon, pertaining to the proposed investigation on the C.N.R. personnel? May I point out that the minister announced that investigation about five weeks ago-


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I know so far is that the investigation is under way. Some sittings have been held, and the parties concerned are setting up the secretariat required in order to carry out this work.
(Text):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bryce S. Mackasey (Verdun):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the government consider the abolition of tolls on the Champlain bridge, should either Point St. Charles or LaSalle be chosen as the site of the world's fair and if recommended by the newly appointed commissioner general?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter of the location of the fair being hypothetical at the moment, I think the question becomes even more hypothetical.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the report that the premier of Quebec has indicated his non-concurrence in the proposed amendment of the British North America Act with regard to old age pensions, will the government at this session of parliament propose some other way of increasing old age pensions?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, part of that question is policy and part of it is impolitic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will bring down and have placed on Hansard the further correspondence that appears to have taken place on this question during the Christmas recess.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Has any recent request been received from either the government of British Columbia or the city of Vancouver for federal assistance or consultation with regard to the invasion of Vancouver by the Sons of Freedom?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister think it normal that the passes issued by the railways last December 12 to the members of the Quebec legislature be unilingual and in English only?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Here again, I think the hon. member will admit that his question is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat differently the question of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron):
Inquiries of the Ministry
Since federal members of parliament have received for the first time this year bilingual passes, could the Minister of Transport not do the same-


Mr. Speaker:: This was not a question-


Mr. Dupuis:: They have always been
bilingual.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the hon. member for Lapointe that such a question should not be asked on the orders of the day.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, will the question of the hon. member for Lapointe be printed in Hansard? The premise of his question was false. Therefore I ask whether it is going to be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must admit that the questions which are put forward, or at least a good portion of the questions-


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a matter of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A matter of privilege cannot be raised when another one is already before the house.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont must recognize that questions which are out of order are nevertheless printed in Hansard. They appear in Hansard and cannot be removed. Consequently, there is no matter of privilege.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Following the statement of the hon. member for Lapointe, who just asserted that the passes we received prior to this session were unilingual, I must state that this is false. In fact, the passes I have been receiving for years have always been printed in both languages. This is what I wanted to put on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe we should start a discussion, make trouble or show stubbornness about a minor point.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.
Since I have been charged with making a false statement concerning the delivery of passes, I should like to take up the issue as a matter of privilege.
The passes which we have received from T.C.A. this year are, for the first time, printed in both languages. Those we received last year were unilingual.
2936	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board


Mr. Speaker:: The point of the matter is that hon. members are talking about different things. I am of the opinion that if the two hon. members could agree on the means of transport concerned, whether it be by airplane or by railroad, these sort of discussions could be avoided.
(Text):



INQUIRY AS TO SALARY INCREASES FOR STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say whether the commissioners of internal economy of the House of Commons have yet dealt with the question of salary increases for employees of the House of Commons comparable to those given to classified civil servants before Christmas?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: The commissioners have dealt generally with this matter. There are one or two details which have yet to be arranged, but the matter will be dealt with within the next day or two.



NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nowlan for the second reading of Bill No. C-87, to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board.
(Translation):
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, to add to the remarks I was making when this debate was adjourned, I now want to reiterate here that we approve the passing of a legislation to establish a national economic development board.
I am not going to delay the business of the house to a great extent, because several hon. members want to deal with the matter. And as we are just coming back from a well deserved holiday, during which I had the privilege of holding 42 meetings without the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville (Mr. Dupuis), it is not only necessary, but urgent that the Canadian parliament pass such legislation at the earliest possible date.
If we members of parliament are unable to see the almost unlimited opportunities for economic development which this country offers, I believe that there are, among our own voters, some people who can easily guess that there are such possibilities.


As I just said, our opportunities are vast and indeed, unlimited. There is no member in this house nor any Canadian citizen who need fear to be unable to find some sort of production tomorrow, in Canada whether in the field of clothing, food or housing. As yet unsuspected resources are available to us which could be developed at the earliest opportunity. We realize that everything cannot be achieved within a month, or six months, or even a year, but we believe that the time has come to see that those natural resources of ours in Canada are developed, so that we may attain a maximum of employment-I do not say full employment, because I do not believe it possible, but a maximum of security and personal freedom which we crave, and that within the limits of this Canada of ours.
Mr. Speaker, these days, some groups try to convince our people that it is necessary for us to accept nuclear arms on our soil or to equip our forces overseas with those nuclear arms.
I believe that the act establishing a national economic development board would counteract those plans for building up nuclear stocks in Canada.
Instead of preparing this country with only 18 million people for a possible war and building up nuclear reserves, we should all get together and promote the production of butter and bread, and prepare our available potential so as to be able to distribute food to the underdeveloped people of the world who are starving at this time.
We would, then, be an example of peace and freedom for everybody. I believe that this would be the most important role for Canada to play on the international scene, that is to become an agent for peace and freedom for those people who are now in distress and poverty and are letting themselves be slowly submerged by international communism.
Mr. Speaker, we Social Crediters have been for a long time promoting these economic development measures. We believe in our country, we have confidence in our population and, as we have repeated many times, we are convinced that what is physically feasible should be made financially possible.
What is morally desirable, what we can achieve with our talents, our own forces, by means of our social organization, all that should be made financially possible.

National Economic Development Board
I think that, even among those who have been fighting us for the last 25 years; that principle is accepted more and more; in any case, it is certainly accepted by the Canadian population.
There is no question here of playing politics when the very future of Canada is at stake; in fact, the future of coming generations, those of our children and grandchildren, is at stake.
It is pointless to pass a piece of legislation, if it is to remain inoperative. To adopt a piece of legislation is nothing; what counts is to adopt and apply it in such a way that Canada may grow and develop by means of the intelligence and talent of its people.
By so doing, Mr. Speaker, we shall efficiently fight unemployment and we shall guarantee some measure of security to each Canadian citizen. In addition, we shall ensure his personal freedom; in other words, we shall offer him security through freedom.
No one among us wants to become a slave. No one wants to be under the yoke of a government nor be dominated by some minister, government or party leader. We prize our freedom above all. Now, if we really prize our freedom, we of this august assembly, the House of Commons-the drawing room of the nation, as it is called throughout Canada- should make a stand for the development of our natural resources. Now, that bill, setting up an economic board which will guide and increase production, does not solve our problem, which is one of distribution. If it is a problem of distribution, it follows therefore that the bill setting up a national economic development board should see to it, first of all, that production reaches its objective, which is to provide for the needs of Canadian consumers.
At that time, we shall have done a service not only to our electors but also to the population of Canada as a whole, and we shall have proven to the world at large that Canada is able to manage its own affairs by itself. Canada can create something and give the world at large the example of peace, justice and security in freedom.
(Text):


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, everybody in the house, as outside the house, has latterly spoken in favour of some form of planning. It is true that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) apparently prefers the word "orientation" to "planification", but even he emphasizes the need for some form of planning in this country.
In order to understand and discuss the principles of the bill before us I think one has to keep in mind some other agencies
which the government has presented to this parliament. Those of us who have believed for a long time in social and economic planning were always confronted with the accusation that planning would mean a proliferation of boards and that it would mean many instruments of bureaucracy. Our opponents were wrong in that criticism of the kind of planning we have been advocating, but the same people have now implemented their erroneous understanding of planning for the purposes of this Canada of ours. Now we do have a proliferation of so-called planning agencies, unrelated one to the other in their set-up and without any kind of integration either of their work, their studies, their plans, or their conclusions.
Let me remind the house, Mr. Speaker, that we have the board proposed by the bill now before us, the national economic development board, to consist of from 14 to 24 members, with all but the chairman working in spare time. Then we have the Atlantic development board established just the other day by legislation. It is to be composed of five members, all of them spare time. Then we have the advisory council on industrial change and manpower adjustment, which is part of a bill presently before parliament. That bill does not tell us the number of members on the council, but only the chairman is to receive any remuneration. Finally, we have the national productivity council the membership of which it is proposed to increase from 25 to 28, and not one of the members of that council is full time. Each one of them is to do the work in his spare time.
Thus we have at least four agencies, and there are others as well, with only one person who will be full time of the entire group of members on all the agencies, namely the chairman of the board being created by the bill now before us. Mr. Speaker, we are to assign to these groups of men who are to give their spare time to the work, the task of planning our economy, the re-allocation of industry, the productivity of our economy and all the other tasks that have to be performed.
Mr. Speaker, I call that cocktail planning. A lot of busy industrial executives and leaders of labour and agriculture are to be brought together from time to time and, over cocktails and a leisurely meal, they are to try to plan the economy of Canada. This cannot be done. This indeed will not be done. This kind of proposal is characteristic of a government and a party which do not really believe in economic planning but which are paying lip service to that which has become popular the world over, and are attempting
2938	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board merely to patch up a little bit of the manifest inefficiency of which they have been guilty for the last five or more years.
The mix-up is much worse than that painted by the words I have just spoken. I ask hon. members to recall that the board we are now discussing, the national economic development board, is to be under the direction of the Minister of Finance. The Atlantic development board is to be under the direction of another minister not yet named, but most likely the Minister of National Revenue. The advisory council on industrial change and manpower adjustment is under the Minister of Labour and the national productivity council is under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Each of these bodies has jobs that mesh together with the tasks of every other one. But each one of these four bodies is under the direction of a different minister, and is composed of different people, every one of whom is to do the work in his spare minutes away from a busy executive life in industry, labour or agriculture.
You have only to read the bills and acts to see the extent to which the jobs of these various bodies are almost exactly the same. The advisory council on industrial change and manpower adjustment has to be concerned with productivity, the same as the national productivity council; and the national economic development board will be talking nonsense unless it is concerned with the capital expenditures and the plans for economic development on the Atlantic seaboard. Yet, I repeat, every one of these boards is under a different minister, with different personnel, and all of them doing precisely the same job.
I submit it is an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people, let alone the members of this parliament, to suggest they will be fooled by this kind of approach and that this is a serious way of tackling economic planning for Canada.
As I have said, everybody has been talking about planning and everybody is pointing his finger at the planning done in France. The Liberals even say it is their policy. But what is the planning program in France? It is about time this important subject be looked at with some knowledge as well as understanding of what is meant by the agencies that are required for the purpose.
What do the French do in the realm of planning? First, they have a commissariat general du plan, a general commissariat of planning, which has under it agencies such as the national productivity council, the regional Atlantic development board and the industrial change and manpower adjustment 

council, all of the agencies related to the total plan under the general commissariat.
The general commissariat has the duty of drawing up a plan, not merely of consulting, not merely of producing information, not merely of making surveys, but of drawing up a concrete plan for economic action in France and as they go along, according to the speeches and reports of M. Masse, who is the actual commissioner of planning in France, they consult the various councils and bodies that are related to the commissariat general du plan. They consult what they call the modernization commissions in order to see how each of the industries would fit in and what technological and automation changes must be made. They make that inquiry not only in general terms but in relation to the specific industries and the regional plans that may be needed. In other words, you have a central planning agency with power to consult other government agencies, with power to relate the work, to integrate the ideas and then come to the cabinet of France with an actual concrete plan of economic development and economic action.


Mr. Martineau:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Will he tell the house whether this body has power of coercion over these various other bodies?


David Lewis: No planning board that has ever been suggested in a democratic country has any power of coercion, and may I say, in all kindness to the minister, that the question shows his ignorance of the very subject which he introduced. In no western country has any one suggested that a board which is to propose plans to a government is itself to have any coercive powers. But the planning commission in France does have the-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member misunderstood my question. I did not imply that there was coercion, but I wanted the hon. member's opinion on that matter.


David Lewis: I thank the minister for his interest in my opinion. It is that no board which is to present plans to a cabinet can or should have coercive power. Indeed, it has never been suggested by my party, or the C.C.F. which preceded it, that any planning board would have the authority to implement its plans. The implementation of the plans is the job of government, subject to the authority of parliament. No one in our party has ever suggested anything else. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that the question shows an ignorance of the matter. But what you must have is genuine planning, and not playing at checkers, moving little pieces on a checkerboard. The body given the authority to plan must have

National Economic Development Board
the power to sit down and plan, and come to the cabinet with all the various elements of the economy having been taken into account, and not merely a survey and some kind of a report which is put in somebody's waste basket or on somebody's shelf.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? Will the hon. member tell us whether he knows of one instance when a government appointed commission, or a body similar to the one which we are talking about and which is the object of the present debate, has ever instituted a law of its own. Can he tell the house whether he knows of one case when such a board has taken the law within its own hands?


David Lewis: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the Associate Minister of National Defence, after the exchange between the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and myself, baffles me somewhat. How a member of the government, who could not follow a simple exchange of the sort that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and I had, will be able to plan the economy of Canada, or take part in it, baffles me too. I have already said, and I say again, that no one in this party or in the C.C.F. ever suggested that a planning board would have the authority to make a law or a rule, or to implement the plans. No democratic socialist anywhere in the world has ever suggested that. We have always taken the position that the only way to maintain democracy is for planning boards to present their plans to government, which will be responsible for implementing them, subject to the authority of parliament. That is the way our kind of country functions, and we have a passionate belief in that democratic procedure and in representative and parliamentary government. Let no questioner here try to take me from that track, because he will not succeed.
I repeat that a board, if it is to do the job, must have the authority to plan and to come to the government with a blueprint of what is proposed, in which every section of the economy has been consulted and in which the affairs and interests of every part of the economy play a part.
In France-I come back to this, because so much reference has been made, by the Liberals especially, to that country-they have, as I am sure the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys has seen, and if he has not I would invite him to look at it, what they call-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have, as a matter of fact.


David Lewis: -input and output tables. They actually attempt to present a three-year-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Four.


David Lewis: -or four-year forecast of how their plan would affect each industry and every section of each industry in the country. That plan is the one that goes to the cabinet.
In our submission, however, for effective, useful and productive economic planning, more than merely the right agency is needed. In order for those plans to have any meaning there has to be a much larger share of public investment in the total investment of a country. One of the reasons why French planning has been successful is that about a third of all gross investment in that country has been public investment, investment from government funds. If you add to that those parts of the economy and those parts of French investment which are controlled directly or indirectly, as well as owned, by the government, then more than one half of the gross investment of France is under public guidance either direct or indirect.
Beyond that, it is of no purpose to make a plan for government to approve if there is not some integration of private planning with public planning; if there is not some integration of private activities in the economy with public activities in the economy. In France, therefore, as part of their total planning mechanism there are not only fiscal incentives to private industry to mesh in with the public plan, but there are actually penalties to industry which does not fit in with the public plan. There are, in addition, selective credit controls for the same purpose. If the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys has studied the French plan he will recall that any medium term loan-that is, a loan for a period of no more than five years-is subject to control by the bank of France, which is publicly owned, through rediscounting of the notes, and they must consult with and get the permission of the commissariat general du plan for any loan over 1,000,000 francs, or roughly $200,000, for investment purposes.
When you deal with a long term loan for investment, involving a loan for a period of more than five years, then if it is for more than two million francs, I think it is-I am quoting this from memory; it is 2 or 2J million francs, or about $500,000-they must consult with and get the direction of the general commission of planning in France. It is by these agencies of consultation, agencies of integration of private and public plans; it is by the penalties as well as incentives to private industry; it is by the guidance of private investment as well as public investment, and above all it is by the provision of public funds for investment purposes, that
2940	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board any planning can really have meaning in a country and be more than, as I have said, a game. In a country like Canada one of the major needs for planning effectively is the power over location and relocation of industry.
That is what is given the commissariat- the commission for general planning-in France, subject to approval by the government. An examination of the functions of this commission will allay once and for all this wrong impression that the people engaged in planning in France are engaged in the type of free enterprise planning which this government and the official opposition intend. It might have been the case had the present President of France set up the machinery but he is not the one who created these agencies. They were there when he came to power.
As a matter of fact they still have price controls in France. I am not advocating this for Canada because I do not think that at the moment we need price controls, though I shall have something to say in a minute or two about administrative prices. In France they still have price controls on steel, aluminum, power, chemicals, automobiles and various other products, in addition, as I say, to great power respecting the location of industry. Nothing of this kind is even contemplated by the legislation before this house.
The commission in France like the various bodies which work under it, consists of a number of men and women all of whom are employed full time, giving their nights, I am sure, as well as their days to the work which needs to be done. Under the proposal now before us a group of sparetime men is to be asked to do this kind of work, and it cannot be done.
I suggest that what this perfunctory bow to the idea of planning in Canada means is a recognition, at least, that the market place is man-made, not divinely constituted. Over the years, as I have studied economics and listened to politicians I have been told about the law of supply and demand as if it were a law which had been handed down from Mount Sinai together with the ten commandments-together with some tablets by a deity. In the event, manipulation has so deliberately twisted and distorted the law of supply and demand that it has now been made meaningless. It has been distorted and twisted by the corporations through the medium of administrative prices, and the wants of the consumer have almost nothing to do-I say "almost nothing" because they have some influence-with the actual prices which are charged.


In Canada, of course, we have in addition a huge and growing degree of foreign control of our industry so that much of what is now part of the Canadian economy is not even in Canadian private hands, let alone subject to any effective direction by public agencies. I am sure hon. members all know of the growth of foreign ownership in Canada. I place these facts before the house at a time when we are considering the planning of mechanism required to deal with a problem of this sort. In 1954, foreign ownership in Canada represented 51 per cent of the total in manufacturing, petroleum, natural gas and mining. By 1957, foreign ownership had grown to 54 per cent. I use those three years as an example of three years under Liberal government. Then from 1957 to 1959, the last year for which figures are available, it grew from 54 per cent to 56 per cent. Every year foreign ownership has grown, whether under a Liberal or a Conservative government and despite speeches from both sides about the desirability of repatriating Canadian industry. If one talks in terms of indirect control, foreign influence grew in the same industries from 55 per cent in 1954 to 61 per cent in 1957 and to 63 per cent in 1959. Obviously, if one adds industries such as transport and public utilities which are mainly in Canadian hands, the percentage of the total economy owned or controlled by foreign investors would be considerably reduced. However, in those basic and important industries, namely, petroleum, natural gas and mining, foreign control has grown to an alarming extent and it continues to grow.
I have referred to the extraction and processing industries. If one turns to those services in our economy which are concerned with acquiring the savings of the Canadian people, the same alarming trend is to be noted. In 1961, nine fire and casualty companies-Canadian companies-were acquired by foreign interests. Since 1955, seven life insurance companies went to foreign ownership. So, today, out of 36 life insurance companies in Canada, 11 are foreign owned. I asked hon. members to think for a moment about the difficulty a spare time agency such as the proposed national economic development board would encounter in attempting to deal with a situation which the Prime Minister in 1957 and 1958 proclaimed as being just about the major problem which faces this country. Hon. members might well ask themselves how a body such as this could deal with this trend toward foreign ownership and control of large segments of our economy. How could it do the job that needs to be done?

National Economic Development Board
The second thing this perfunctory bow to planning shows is a recognition of a principle which we in this party have been stating in Canada for decades, namely that the multiple decisions by irresponsible private corporations will not necessarily produce socially desirable results. It is necessary for the public well-being that the government should be responsible for decisions in order that they meet the needs of the Canadian people. Finally, it is recognition also that intervention by government in public planning is essential to the welfare of Canada.
I say, for the reasons 1 have given, that the kind of cocktail planning now proposed cannot possibly do the job. This is a first, faltering step. The people of Canada will probably accept it, as members of this house are forced to accept it, as a first, faltering step. But the people of Canada will not be fooled and we in this house are not being fooled into believing that this constitutes constructive planning in any real sense of the word. A planning board, I submit, must have the power to set a plan for a definite period of time. That period could be three, four or five years. It might be a continuing period or a period which would end when a new period began. By this I mean we could have a plan for five years, or six years, or four years and then, at the end of it, have another plan for four, five or six years. Alternatively, we could do as the French have done, intelligently, it seems to me, and have a four-year plan, for instance, which would be a continuing plan; that is to say, every year would be the first year of a four-year plan; the plan would be revised at the beginning of each year but alwoys for a four-year term as progress was made in thinking about the country's economy.
The planning commission must be able to do that over a period of years, otherwise I predict that such an agency would be tempted to find ways and means of patching up errors which had been made in the previous month, or the previous year. Instead of considering the economy as a whole and planning for its progress on a long term basis, it would merely say: we have a foreign exchange calamity, so perhaps we can solve it this way, or, we have this shortage of such and such tomorrow, perhaps we can solve it that way. And, of course, there would not be any planning at all. Planning must be concerned, second, with all the phases of the economy. It must be concerned with production in its over-all aspect, and with the location of industry in order to meet the regional needs. Third, it must have the authority to establish a rate of growth for each year in order to
have full employment without inflation. That is the primary objective of economic planning. Fourth, it must have the authority to relate the size of investment for social capital to production by private industry. It must have authority to try to relate the expenditures and the production of social capital as against expenditures for conspicuous consumption, or, in other words, expenditures on hospitals and homes as against expenditures to produce status symbols, as they are now called by the sociologists. It must also have the authority to make plans with regard to our external trade as part and parcel of the total sphere of economic planning. Because planning with regard to production has no meaning unless it is related to our exports and to our imports. Unless there is some effective, constructive and positive way in which external trade is integrated with the domestic economy, in which external demand is integrated with domestic demand, and our relationship to the balance of payments and balance of trade is likewise integrated with investment and production at home, economic planning would often be self-defeating.
Mr. Speaker, let me pause there to say that only with that kind of planning can you find the solution to the crippling increase of foreign control over the Canadian economy.


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


David Lewis: Well, I do not know whether I should. I have not many minutes left.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. member tell the house whether the implementation of planning boards such as he has suggested can be made without the imposition of state controls and various other measures?


David Lewis: The minister is using what teachers of language call evocative language. He thinks that if he says "state control" he will bring down some kind of frightening ghost which will put fear into the hearts not of his colleagues or of hon. members opposite, but of the people to whom he intends to appeal for votes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Just answer the question.


David Lewis: Let me say to the minister that it is not possible to have any kind of law without the people of the country obeying that law. Every time the minister proposes any legislation he necessarily proposes sanctions to impose that legislation-except that he does it for bad legislation and I am suggesting that it be done for good legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, there is an element of some relevance in the minister's question and his question gives me the opportunity to deal with the point.

National Economic Development Board
You must find ways and means in a democratic nation to make the planning sequence and the planning activity as democratic as humanly possible. For that purpose we have proposed over and over again that the central planning board should have at its hand a consultative council representative of every element in the country-business, labour, agriculture, co-operatives, consumers, and all other segments of the people of Canada and every other economic interest. Furthermore, it should not merely be representative in the sense that the government appoints the people who it thinks should represent others, but representative in the sense that the organizations of labour, agriculture, consumers and co-operatives themselves nominate the people they want on the consultative council. In this way there will be genuine voices from the various segments of the Canadian people participating in the planning activity and in the final conclusions which the planning board will arrive at.
In addition to that, it has always been my concept of planning as we have proposed it, which concept I am sure is shared by my leader and every other colleague in my party, as well as every member of my party across the country, that the planning agency would in every day of its work be consulting with the various elements of the Canadian economy- industry, finance, labour and agriculture- not only at formal meetings of the consultative council, but as a necessary and integral part of its day-to-day activities. Because we who have studied history have learned that no law passed in a democratic country can possibly be successful and effective merely by coercion. It can only be an effective and good law if it has the consent of the people. That is why this consultative machinery is necessary. It is not in order to be able to answer supposedly needling questions such as the minister asked a moment ago, but is intended as a genuine contribution to the machinery of planning and to the democratic work of that machinery. May I add, as I have been reminded, that there is nothing in the legislation now before the house that suggests a consultative council of the kind I have described, where the organizations concerned will themselves nominate and appoint the people who will represent them on that council.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the only way to deal with the growing threat of foreign control of Canada's economy is by the kind of planning we are suggesting. Because only if you have a national development fund, a source for public investment, can you carry on the kind of activity which will generate Canadian capital for investment purposes, instead of our economic development requiring the capital of investors from outside the

country, as has been the case in the past. It is my conviction that while there may always be need for foreign investment in Canada, while it is wrong ever to close the doors to foreign investment, Canada's economy has advanced sufficiently far and the Canadian people have reached a sufficient understanding of what economic matters mean, that we can generate in Canada the capital required for planned Canadian production, and therefore would have no need for the foreign investment which has taken place in the past and which has been such a drain on the foreign exchange of our country.
When the kind of planning which I am discussing is proposed, another thing which people often throw at us is that we would take away the choice of the consumer. Again that makes me chortle. What choice has the consumer in modern society, particularly in modern North American society? Production no longer takes place as a result of the choice of the consumer. Millions of dollars are spent to create demand for things which people do not need, not to produce things which people do need. For example, you sit in your car and listen to the radio. At one moment one company is advertising one kind of toothpaste, and then another kind of toothpaste is said to be better than the one just advertised, and you find that it is the same company advertising it. So that money is spent by that company in order to compete with itself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It may be the same toothpaste.


David Lewis: Yes, it may be the same toothpaste, probably not more useful than the other. But all this money is being spent and is added to the price that the consumer must pay in response to the choice of the consumer? Fiddlesticks, Mr. Speaker. It is in response to the greedy grabbing for profits by the corporation which thinks it can make a little more out of toothpaste B than out of toothpaste A, even though it manufactures both, and which, as I have learned in my professional capacity, is produced very frequently on the same assembly line in the same plant.
No, Mr. Speaker, all these things are shibboleths which blind man's mind in our North American society, and which prevent the reasonable, the logical, the sensible and the practical measures to make our economy function in the interests of the Canadian people and in the interests of hungry and needy people the world over. We throw down the words "state control" and close our minds. We throw down the word "planning" and close our minds. We talk about consumers' choice and close our minds. We talk about state interference and close our minds. All the time our economy produces unemployment.

All the time our economy falls into the hands of foreign investors. All the time we lose more and more of our values. All the time our marketplace begins to control the Canadian mind, the Canadian spirit and the Canadian view. I appeal to hon. members to drop these shibboleths and these evocative words and to look at the modern economy with the analytical minds which I am sure they possess and in the scientific way required by modern society. Unless we do so, the challenge of totalitarians from the right or from the left will be difficult to meet and this country, like other countries, will face much more serious problems than those we face today.
Like other members of this house I may be forced to vote for second reading because a small faltering step may be better than nothing. I do it, I hope, as a responsible member representing a section of the Canadian people and I would not wish to stand in the way even of this kind of small step that may help the present government to make fewer mistakes. I am sure it will not help it to do better things but it may help it to make fewer mistakes. I wish to emphasize the fact that, as far as we are concerned, this is not planning in any sensible sense. As I think I have said twice already, this kind of cocktail planning is merely an indication that hon. members at last understand that something needs to be done, but there is not yet any indication that this government understands what it is that needs to be done.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, whenever a piece of legislation of the importance and the significance of that now before the house comes to the attention of hon. members there is always a tendency to look at it in terms of its ability to solve all the problems besetting the Canadian economy at the present time. This is particularly true of parties or individuals with a doctrinaire approach to economic matters. While it is true that the government believes the national development board contemplated by this legislation is a far reaching and important step in ensuring the continuing progress of the Canadian economy, we do not regard it as the universal solvent of all our difficulties. Rather we regard it merely as a continuation of the program that has been under way ever since this government took office in 1957. This is not the beginning of a new era. This is the continuation of a program that has been gradually unfolding under the leadership of the Conservative government.
National Economic Development Board
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the Minister of Finance on bringing forward this legislation. Let me also remind the house that he is not a new convert to this kind of planning. As I listen to debates in the House of Commons I find that it is rather helpful to have a bit of historical perspective. I have been here since 1951 and sometimes I find there is a tendency for memories to be conveniently short. Without an historical perspective it is impossible to put the changing state of the nation into the right perspective. I recall that the Minister of Finance, when he was a member of the opposition, advocated just such a board as that which he is now proposing as a minister of the crown. I can recall back in those days members of the opposition at that time recommending that there should be a planning board to carry out a closer co-ordination and co-operation between the various sectors of the Canadian economy, and the government of the day turning down the suggestion because, as we used to hear so frequently, all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Let me repeat that what has been going on is a continuation of the five year plan launched by the administration back in 1957. Change in that respect was long overdue since we had gotten into a rut in our attitude towards economic affairs in Canada as typified by the former administration in its attitude towards change in the agriculture industry, for example. I can remember the then minister of agriculture saying that while there was distress in the agriculture economy, it was just a passing phase and that eventually it would work itself out. As a matter of fact, I became a member of the House of Commons in 1951 as a result of the agriculture protest of that period. Then in the realm of industrial development there was almost absolute rigidity and indifference to problems. We were geared to a wartime economy. Industry was concentrated in a small area of Canada. It was outmoded and1 uncompetitive because it had its great period of expansion during the uneconomic circumstances of a wartime economy and we were failing to gear up to reality in that regard.
I came here from the field of education and I can remember trying to introduce in this house the subject of the crisis in education and being almost faced with a situation where the discussion was prevented because, under the constitution, education came under the jurisdiction of the provinces. It was not until 1957 we realized that we had a crisis in education when sputnik went into orbit. I do not mention 1957 for partisan or political
2944	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board reasons. It is just coincidental perhaps that the Conservative government came into power in 1957.


An hon. Member:: And fortunate.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, and fortunate. It was not until sputnik went into orbit that we all acknowledged that we had a crisis in education. Since that time the new administration has been endeavouring to make up for lost time, for the years that the locusts had eaten. We have been advancing the program of technological training through the rapid expansion of technical schools. We have increased aid to education all along the line. I could spend some time in reviewing the inertia of the past. However, what I wish to do is to trace as briefly as possible the steps which have been taken to make up for lost time. I am going to concentrate on my own area of interest, namely the field of national resources and outline what has been done. The program should be clear to all members of the house; but as I have listened to comments and speeches I have come to the conclusion that even though the evidence is available there are a few blind eyes and a few deaf ears in this house, and there are none so blind as those who refuse to see and none so deaf as those who refuse to hear.
Planning has been under way on the part of the government in the resource base field in the areas of both non-renewable and renewable resources, and it is quite appropriate that planning should have begun in this sector of the Canadian economy because this is typical Conservative philosophy. National development has always had a resource base whenever a Conservative administration has been in power. I am free to admit that in this regard northern development has perhaps caught the imagination of the public more than other resource areas, largely because this is a field that was so sadly neglected by previous federal administrations.
I have noticed in recent days that the leader of the Social Credit group, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), has been telling us that we should launch a vigorous program of northern development. I am happy to assure him that such a program was launched back in the year 1957 and has been moving forward since that time. He points particularly to transportation needs and the possible usefulness of the hovercraft, this new transportation vehicle. Again I am glad to assure him that we shall be having a trial run of a hovercraft early this spring and, if possible, we will arrange to take him along on the first trip. I agree that this vehicle has a tremendous potential so far as the overcoming of the transportation problems of the north is concerned.


It was inevitable that we had to plan very carefully in the resource field because the resources belong to the provinces. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has to work in a very sensitive area in devising national resource development policies. It can only be done by the closest possible co-operation and co-ordination with the provincial governments. I should like to suggest that we have been reasonably successful in this regard.
If I may speak about conferences and cooperation for a moment, I would point out that we called a conference on renewable resources which was held over a year ago in the city of Montreal. We did so because we realized the problems of getting the provinces and the federal government together. This is resource planning of a basic kind, and all the 700 Canadians who took part in that historic resources for tomorrow conference went home feeling that something significant had been accomplished there.
What has emerged in concrete terms from the conference? I am going to mention one example which in terms of planning and in terms of government organization is of fundamental importance. We now have a resource ministers council. This has been announced in the press but apparently it has not sunk deeply into the consciousness of members of the house. This resource ministers council is made up of a representative from each of the provincial governments and representatives from the federal government, all of whom occupy co-equal position on the council. At the present time the council is venturing into a new era of intergovernmental co-operation. It is organizing a secretariat that will be responsible to both the federal authority and the provincial authorities. This secretariat will be completely bilingual.
This is just one development. I could mention others that have emerged from planning in the renewable resource field launched by the government back in 1957 if there were time to do so this afternoon. One of the first matters we had to tackle was the question of the special problems in the different regions of Canada. In the resource area we have given close attention to the problems of the Atlantic provinces as well as those of the prairie region because in those areas economic difficulty in the resource field was most pronounced. This again, I say, is basic Conservative policy because we believe in providing equal opportunities for all parts of Canada and for all groups in Canada.
To mention one example of this kind of planning in the Atlantic provinces area, I would refer to the Atlantic Provinces Power

Development Act which has had such a significant impact on that part of the Canadian economy. I would also refer to our national policy for agriculture. After all, agriculture is a basic renewable resource, and a most significant addition was made to our legislation a year ago when the house approved the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
I am dealing only with my own department at the moment, but I would emphasize that there has been other planning over the past five years. What is contemplated now is a further step forward because we have arrived at the point in the Canadian economy where we must secure the co-operation of the private sector of the economy. In a day and age when society was less complex it was easier to have this sort of co-operation on an informal basis, but I fully anticipate that the national economic development board which will be organized when this legislation is approved by the house will make it possible to bring in representatives from the various private sectors of the economy who will work more closely with the government programs that have already been launched.
I submit that this is a further step forward in the sort of development that has been taking place in the past five years. It is not unlike the kind of planning that has been going on in Europe since the war. This fact was established by the members of the productivity council when they visited Europe recently to study the kinds of economic planning going on there. In Sweden and the other European countries they found, that planning is not rigid and authoritarian but rather provides for encouragement of the spirit of co-operation and co-ordination in the various sectors of their economies.


Mr. Speaker:: In the spirit of co-operation I will now say that it is five o'clock, the time appointed for the consideration of private members' business, being notices of motions as they appear on page 24 of today's order paper.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient to establish a national location of industry council for the purpose of directing new industry into those regions of the country which are dependant on a narrow industrial base and those which are areas of surplus manpower; and
That the national location of industry council, in co-operation with the monetary and fiscal authorities, be empowered to offer incentives to attract new industry to such regions when requested by provincial and municipal governments.
National Location of Industry Council
He said: I am sure that hon. members will see a similarity between the purpose of this resolution and some of the speeches that have recently been made on a number of other items of government legislation. If the recommendations of hon. members of parliament were put into effect and carried with them the benefits that are sometimes outlined by speakers discussing legislation, then probably it would be possible for me to withdraw this resolution. However, Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution I wish to say nothing has yet been accomplished that would indicate to me legislation is not necessary to assist industry move into areas which now have little or no industry.
One of the reasons I am interested in looking at legislation in European countries, and particularly that of Great Britain which we are apt to follow, is to try and find some solutions for problems that we ourselves have not been able to solve.
I come from northern Ontario where the problem of lack of industry is very acute. In that area we have dozens and dozens of towns built around two basic industries that were the backbone of the country's economy until the last few years, and now we see secondary industry in other areas rapidly approaching its sphere of supremacy and growth. Seeing secondary industry grow, and looking at the two basic industries which provided the initial spur to the economy of many parts of the country, we realize something must be done for the municipalities which grew out of those basic industries.
The two industries are not alike. The basic development occurred through the forest industry, which is a renewable industry. I believe that fifty or a hundred years ago, had we looked how people in Sweden, Norway and other countries in Europe utilized their natural resources in the forest industry, it would not be necessary for me to ask for assistance on behalf of the people in forest towns and people in the pulp and paper industry, in terms of locating secondary industry in their areas. However the fact is that very little has been done to renew the renewable resources of our country, particularly forestry, which is very nearly in the same position as the mining industry, which is based on a non-renewable resource.
When conducting negotiations a number of years ago with a company that had been in the lumber industry in one area for 45 years, I was surprised to find the company could not go back to the first cuts it had made 45 years ago and find itself in the position of getting timber off those limits in order to continue the cycle of its operations. I think
2946	HOUSE OF
National Location of Industry Council the company manager was surprised I did not know this, but he informed me it would be 90 years before the company could cut any timber of commercial value off the limits it had been living on for 45 years. We have not done anything about this, and of course we have not been able to do anything about industries based on non-renewable resources, such as the mining industry.
Many towns grew up because of the discovery of minerals. People established municipalities throughout northern Canada and the people in those municipalities knew they were living off a non-renewable resource. But, Mr. Speaker, they had the right to expect that eventually the government of Canada would show interest in their particular problem in the same manner as governments in other parts of the world had faced up to it a long time previously and had solved it. I believe the present is the time for the federal government to give some leadership in this particular field, in which it has shown no interest and no particular aptitude, in order to develop the co-operation that is necessary if we are to solve the problem of the industrial growth of areas that were originally dependant on one basic industry.
It is true that in countries like Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries they have each one government that is responsible for the welfare of all the people, and their problem is not as complex as ours in Canada where we have the constitutional problem of federal and provincial jurisdiction. However, Mr. Speaker, surely that is not a problem that cannot be solved? Surely in the 100 years Canada has been a country we should have been able to come up with some of the solutions necessary to provide the initiative that would locate industry in the areas with which I am concerned.
The former speaker in the previous debate mentioned the fact that the federal government, provincial and municipal governments, industry and labour must all co-operate if anything worthwhile is to be accomplished, and I believe that is particularly true with regard to the location of secondary industry in those areas that are hard hit. I believe [DOT]co-operation is more necessary than any other field of endeavour but it takes a strong and interested government to give the leadership that is necessary because private enterprise, which says the profit motive is the backbone of its system, is not going to develop industry in northern Ontario.
It might be a surprise for hon. members to visit a town like Matachewan, where at one time there were two major good producers, which had a population of 2,000 to 3,000, which had its own jail, its own hotels, 

its own schools, churches, sidewalks and water supply, and to find that as of the first of this year it has gone back to the state of being an unorganized township and was actually given the assistance of the provincial government of Ontario to get back into that position. I do not think we will get much co-operation from the province of Ontario when it believes all we should do is return these municipalities to an unorganized state where the province provides public welfare to take care of the people. The people of Matachewan do not want to be taken care of in that way. They want to take care of themselves. They have a pioneering spirit and all they want are jobs so that they can continue to build their town.
This problem has to be looked at in terms of Toronto because it seems to me that we in northern Ontario, and people in other parts of Canada, are being vastly penalized because we have allowed metropolitan industrial complexes to develop as they have been developing. In Toronto there are industries employing 300 or 400 people that are a liability to the city. They are taxing its water supply, its transportation facilities and housing facilities. The rest of the taxpayers of Canada are continually being asked for grants to help Toronto, and other cities like it, with their transportation systems and their National Housing Act schemes, their education and other things that are necessary in such terrifically expanding communities, but at the same time the people of Matachewan are being carried on welfare because they have not got jobs. A small factory employing 300 or 400 employees in Matachewan would elevate the town to its proper status and put it in the position of paying its own way and carrying its own burdens.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that Canada will never be a great country until we are willing to help all the people in this country to equate themselves on the basis of a general and equal standard of living. It is not good enough to build up one part of the economy, because of the free enterprise system, not because of the people who live in those cities. I am quite sure they are unhappy with the fact that it takes them two or three hours to go downtown, the same as people in other cities; but it is up to us in the federal parliament to see that assistance and direction are given to those companies wishing to locate in Canada and we should assist them to locate in areas where the most good will accrue.
This has been done in Great Britain. There is the instance where Ford wanted to build an addition to a very large enterprise they had near Coventry. The British government said, "No, we will not give you a permit to

National Location of Industry Council
build there. We want you to build in an resolution does not suffer the same fate as
area where there is a surplus of labour. We will give you certain assistance if you will do that." The free enterprise system works there too, I think, because Ford said they would not build the extension of their factory where it was wanted. But if hon. members will check they will find that Ford subsequently changed their mind and are now doing that. There has been persuasion on the part of the government to see that industry has located in those areas where there is a high concentration of consumers to take a large quantity of the production of a particular factory.
This can be done, with the assistance of the federal government, through the agencies that we now have. I am always shocked, Mr. Speaker, when I discuss this matter with people wishing to establish industries in northern Ontario, by the very limited assistance they have received from the industrial development bank, which is under the control of this house. Yet in Great Britain and other countries, when the location of industry acts were passed, they made available sums of money that could be loaned to industries wishing to establish in particular areas. This has been tried, not only in Europe but in the province of Nova Scotia with some success, where they have established an estates act and have built a number of factories. I believe that an extension of the industrial development bank, in conjunction with the location of industry, would allow this to take place in northern Ontario.
I think that if we considered those areas where a surplus of manpower has developed, through no fault of the people themselves, where there is a large concentration of housing already available without any further federal expenditure, where the business community exists and transportation and other facilities that are necessary for an expanding community, we would see that the only thing that is needed is the direction of the federal government in locating industry in those areas, and the government would be hard pressed to find a reason for not assisting these particular industries.
I know that other hon. members wish to speak on this matter. When other hon. members speak in connection with the establishment of a national location of industry council-or call it some other name, if you wish-the fact that we do wish to direct industry into those areas where through no fault of the community the basic industry has died, or where automation or urbanization have taken place and eliminated the basic employment industry of the people themselves, I will be very surprised if this
other resolutions and bills put before this house, which have been loved to death. If hon. members support this idea and this principle I hope it will receive some consideration now because, Mr. Speaker, the question is of prime importance to the people of northern Ontario. In Kirkland Lake this year another mine or two will close in the gold mining industry. This is true in all other mining communities, particularly the gold and silver mining communities, where mines are being depleted, with no assistance and no recourse to the development of secondary industry being available to the municipalities which are so desperately looking for assistance in this regard. While in the town of Kirkland Lake a new mine has been found, which will alleviate the serious problem that has been facing these people for many years, the problem is by no means solved because that mine also is a non-renewable resource. If hon. members wish to support the relocation of industry and the establishment of a national location of industry council, with government financial assistance, I hope they will make it possible for a vote to be held on this very important question so that this measure can be added to the government legislation that has already been advertised throughout the country as being aimed in the general direction that I believe the establishment of a national location of industry council is aimed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the resolution moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has brought once again to the attention of the house one of the major economic problems facing this country. Notwithstanding the action being taken in the current session in setting up various new agencies in the economic field, none of these agencies is equipped or designed to deal with the important problem that this resolution brings to our attention.
It is an obvious fact that there are certain areas in Canada which are suffering from chronic and persistent unemployment. The resolution refers to these areas as surplus manpower areas. These areas have their problems reduced in a period of prosperity because the employment level rises somewhat, but the problems are aggravated in a period of recession. The hon. member who has resumed his seat has referred to the disappearing communities, or disappearing employment opportunities in certain parts of Ontario because of technological changes, changes in consumer demand and other influences. It is a fact that certain communities in all parts of Canada are faced with
2948	HOUSE OF
National Location of Industry Council this particular problem. I personally believe that there is a national responsibility and that a national agency should apply remedies to all areas of Canada, not only the Atlantic provinces but all areas which are facing this particular difficulty. While I welcomed the concept behind the Atlantic provinces development board, it would be my preference that economic problems be handled on a national basis with techniques and tools applied to localities no matter where they are located in Canada.
The hon. member has referred, of course- and correctly-to experience in the United Kingdom and the United States in dealing with problems of depressed areas or areas of chronic and persistent unemployment. One of the first things that President Kennedy did, something for which he fought very fiercely during his senate career, was to establish an area development agency to deal with the problem of depressed areas. One of the early reports defines the kind of area that we have in mind in this particular resolution; that is, a depressed area is typically a pocket of chronic unemployment which persists even during relatively prosperous times in the rest of the nation. It is especially hard hit in time of recession. When the current unemployment rate is over 6 per cent, the depressed area rate is over 10 per cent. It is a fact that one province in Canada in the period of highest unemployment in the winter months has an unemployment rate of between 16 and 20 per cent. There are various communities in the Atlantic provinces especially in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick which at certain periods of the year have between 10 and 20 per cent of their paid workers idle. This situation continues over a period of years, amounting to a permanent pool of unemployment.
Now we have to try, as a civilized community, to do something about putting new economic life into these depressed areas. We have taken the attitude as a party that we need a special agency within the federal government to deal with the problems of depressed areas. Whether such a body is called a national location of industry council or, as we have suggested, an area rehabilitation agency, is immaterial provided it is set up to do this job. The first thing such an agency has to do is designate the areas to which special assistance should be granted. That has not been done in this country. It has been done in the United States under their development plan and it is being done in the United Kingdom. Based on their unemployment experience, certain areas are known and designated as areas in need of special assistance.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this suggestion because, in the first place, I think it is redundant in view of the many planning boards we already have. I am also opposed to it as another indication of the trend towards rank socialism. We have a choice-at least, I hope we have-in this generation of ours in Canada as to whether or not we are going to preserve our democratic way of life. The democratic way of life demands self-expression and control of our
National Location of Industry Council own destinies. Planning I do believe in, but not interference. That sounds contradictory of course; but planning is only bad in the extreme. What I am worried about is national planning which gets to the point where private industry and private enterprise has no position.
When I listen to my hon. friends on my right I am worried about this trend. Because they are never satisfied with any of the things which private enterprise or democracy has produced. One would think, to hear them speak one after the other, that you have only to put in some form of socialism to end all our troubles, to bring us the millenium. They point to such countries as Sweden, Switzerland, and other places where they have some socialistic institutions. I would be the first to say that some of these socialistic institutions have produced favourable results, but that is not the only way. I for one believe in our North American way of life. I think we have produced with private enterprise and the minimum of state interference and control the highest standard of living on our planet, and with the greatest freedom. I for one am willing to give up a certain amount of standard of living even if it means part of my freedom. As an individual I am not myself ready to give over to the government either the power completely to control my life or the responsibility. I think it is time that Canadians young and old, rich and poor, employed and unemployed, took a really good look at the trends to see whether there is not something they can do, both as individuals and collectively, to move forward to fuller employment and to a higher standard of living without giving up control of their own destiny.
With a multiplicity of boards, particularly when they are duplicating the services provided by boards already existing and those suggested on our agenda, we can have too much government. It is not long ago that I found it necessary to approach the cabinet of the great province of Alberta. There I found that instead of seeking more national control they suggested that we were already deeply involved in running the affairs of the provinces and they wished that we would withdraw. On the other hand, I found this a somewhat one-sided argument because they never suggested at any time that we withdraw financial support, and it seems that when you ask for financial support for anything you are going to have some degree of control. Overseeing planning, some people call it.
We already have a national productivity council. I am sure that if the national productivity council does its work and what is planned for it, the location of industry would be high on its list. In fact, I do not know what

National Location of Industry Council other purpose the national productivity council would have but to give to indusry, to the provinces and to the necessary federal government departments the proper advice in regard to the location of our industries and the efficient distribution of our manpower. But I still think that the more we leave to private industry and private enterprise the better.
If immediately an area becomes low in employment the federal government steps in and injects into that district some uprooted industry, or creates some new industry, there will be a tendency for the people of that area to stay. Perhaps they may even be persuaded to pursue a way of life foreign to them. For instance, if a mine closes down, how are we to know that if a wool factory was established in the area the people would move from the mine into that wool factory? It seems to me that the main job of our productivity council is to look at the national product, to look at our international markets, and to see where we can encourage the industries which we have and the industries which are natural to any part of the country to improve their economic position; and I can see nothing wrong with attracting people who really want to work from one section of our country to another.
In northern Alberta today we are looking forward to one of the most spectacular developments in the production of oil from tar sand. If our productivity council takes a look at this great country, a country which I predict will one day be as rich as the Ruhr, and these entrepreneurs go in there and develop a new and tremendous industry, unemployed people, no matter where they are in Canada, will be encouraged to take their energies, their skills and faith into northern Alberta and help develop this tremendous industry. It cannot be exaggerated: 500 billion barrels of oil no longer locked in the sands but looking for markets and for production.
This is the sort of challenge which lies before us in Canada today. There is no running away from our problem. There is no seeking any government, national, provincial or municipal, to handle our affairs. We look to individual effort, faith and energy, and any planning board should do no more than to create the atmosphere in which private enterprise can thrive. I will not exaggerate my faith in private enterprise. It has brought us all that we have today, and I am sure that it will drive on to fresh and greater heights. It is not many months ago since we heard doom and gloom preached from one end of the country to the other. The opposition said that our finances were on the rocks. They said that we were no longer willing or able to lead this country to better times. Now 

they are going around the country apologizing for what they call a mild boom. Perhaps this is accidental. Perhaps they think this is due to planning boards. I do not. I do not think this boom is due to planning boards at all. I think it is due to the fact that we are an energetic nation as individuals-not as socialists, not even as left-wing Liberals. We in the Conservative party believe in free enterprise in the future of our country, and in co-operation between government departments. And even as one of our socialist speakers said this afternoon, we want no checkerboard and we want no duplication of planning. This group of ours here is the great planning board for Canada. It is up to us here to devise policies which suit everybody, and which look to individual effort. I think this planning board can do no more than to say what I have said in more specific terms and to lay out blueprints for that kind of development, so that it will come to you and say, "We want you to go to work on your own". However, I do not want any planning board in Canada to come to me and say, "Here, you will go to "A" and you will work at such and so". We must create an atmosphere in which I desire to go to "A" and to take my family, and to pioneer in the same way as did my grandfather and my parents. This opportunity I wish to pass on to my children and to their children's children. It may sound like old stuff but it is still good up in the country from which I come. Up there there is still a challenge for any young man or young woman or any group of young men or young women who wish to take a chance, as did my father and mother and my grandparents, to come up into the booming parts of our country and to develop there the free enterprise system which has made us the nation that we are today.
(Translation):


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, this motion of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has to do with a matter of the highest importance for Canada, for the province of Quebec in particular, and for the Saguenay area, which I have the honour to represent here, together with three other members.
The setting up of a national location of industry council, which is proposed to us, would perhaps be necessary to decentralize our industry, and thus check the movement of our population towards the larger centres. That population movement causes serious problems in those cities whose population thus increases, and it causes also problems to parents who have to be separated from their children. That population movement causes disturbances both on the economic and social plans.

National Location of Industry Council
Of course, it is not as easy to decentralize industry as it may seem.
The responsibilities which this motion proposes to impart to board members could also be those of the economic development board which we discussed this afternoon. I do not think we can separate those matters at all.
We are discussing today Bill C-87, concerning the establishment of a national economic development board.
Well, I think that such a development board, together with the productivity council which has been in existence since last year, can undertake to consider those problems and bring about the necessary improvements.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that if we refer to the latest statistics concerning the employment situation, that is the December 15, 1962 report, we note that we have about 414,000 unemployed in Canada, 154,000 of whom are living in the province of Quebec, that is 37 per cent. The Saguenay area alone, Mr. Speaker, has about 15,000 unemployed at present, which is causing deep misgivings in our area.
The situation in the Saguenay area is the result of the fact that we have only two big industries, that of paper and that of aluminum, which are both affected by the situation prevailing on the international market.
Our area being somewhat remote from the larger centres, we find it difficult to attract industries which might hire the available labour.
Our region is rich in natural resources, namely hydraulic, mining and forest resources. It has tremendous possibilities.
We have waterways, very good roads and a railway, even though it is rather obsolete.
Of course, I am not the first one to rise in this house to ask for improved railway facilities between the larger centres and the Saguenay. This would surely make the Saguenay region more attractive to industrialists. But, in my opinion, as regards the motion now under discussion, one can see that the government could do its share so as to make an area even more attractive to industry.
I feel that the tax reductions which are being asked and suggested would prompt a company to set up in one place rather than in another. There is also the matter of accelerated depreciation for equipment.
There is another organization which should not be neglected. I refer to the industrial
development bank, which, at the present time, provides loans to assist in the development of industry.
That bank could do much more than it is doing now. The government would have no great difficulty in finding borrowers who could go into those depressed areas to build plants, something which at the same time could improve the general situation.
But, at the present time, the industrial development bank is subject to exceedingly strict regulations.
Having met several industrialists in my area, I know it is not too easy to get help from that organization. The bank, whose loans bear a rather high rate of interest, requires guarantees to such an extent that an industrialist who is not already well established finds it practically impossible to obtain the funds needed for the development of his enterprise.
It is obvious that if the regulations of the industrial development bank were more flexible, more adapted to circumstances, many manufacturers in the various regions of the country could find there the source of capital their industries need, and thus help increase the local production and curtail unemployment.
The government would profit greatly by an improved situation, in view of the constant drain on its unemployment insurance and assistance funds.
I am sure that a reduction of the rate of the industrial development bank as well as a greater flexibility of its regulations, would be advantageous, because even if it would mean possible losses for the organization, these losses would be fully made up by the savings on disbursements for unemployment insurance or assistance or for any other project.
At all events, Mr. Speaker, I think that those projects would improve the situation. But that would surely take some time.
We are informed by the press that the Saguenay region and the Hamilton region which I think is represented by the Minister of Labour, were declared heavy manpower surplus areas during the month of December.
People wonder what this government can do and intends to do. As immediate measures, public works which the government can proceed with represent the only means to improve the situation, and that, as a palliative since they are temporary devices.
Several projects were suggested to the government by various hon. members in this
2952	HOUSE OF
National Location of Industry Council house. If the government would listen to them and co-operate, a good measure of improvement could be obtained in a very short time.
Of course, I know those are but provisional measures and that industrial development only may compensate and bring about stability which not only will last, but will go on improving, thus ensuring to the different areas of the country and of the province a normal development and jobs which will make it possible for the population to get what it needs.
I know that in so doing, the government is once again asked to set up boards and to impinge upon a field which, normally, should be reserved to the provinces. But we have come to the point where it is to be wondered whether the present economic situation in Canada is not the result of a concerted action, of a comprehensive over-all plan to force the provinces, the municipalities, in other words the citizens themselves, to crawl to Ottawa on their knees to beg favours.
I know that other provinces of Canada do not have to face such a serious problem, from the standpoint of unemployment, because they have probably benefited from what we could call a better understanding on the part of the federal government. For instance, Ontario is in a privileged situation. In fact, I think that if we compare its situation with that of the other provinces, we note a centralization of industry.
I do not know whether I can take the liberty of making the following remarks, but the national productivity council, which is a body set up by the government to promote production in manufactures and other related enterprises, is now composed of 25 members, the majority of whom are citizens of Ontario.
I would not like, at this stage, to criticize the attitude of the members of that board, but 1 think it is normal, after all, for people living in the same province, to understand better the problems of that particular province and to understand less those of the country as a whole.	.
I feel that such a situation must be brought to the attention of the other representatives we see in this house, because the Quebec members are being accused of complaining about discrimination. In my opinion, the representatives of the other provinces should study closely the membership of the various crown corporations and agencies which are in majority composed of citizens from Ontario. Consequently, it is no wonder that all measures put forward by the government are made up to fit the needs of the province of


Ontario. And those measures are far from taking into account the needs of the eastern provinces, the maritime provinces in particular, which also suffer from that situation.
Mr. Speaker, if provincial governments had greater freedom of action in the field of taxation, if they had their own revenues, I think that a good number of the problems facing the federal government would be solved. In fact, the provincial authorities could take those problems in charge themselves and solve them. But since they do not have the necessary revenues, they must constantly address themselves to the central government, and I think we are rendering a disservice to confederation and to good understanding in this country in forcing them to come regularly on a pilgrimage to Ottawa in order to obtain, piecemeal, those things to which they are entitled and which belong to them, as a result of the prerogatives which have been conferred to them under the agreement.
Of course, all those boards may have some good effects. They will probably limit certain freedoms, which are dear to us but, unfortunately, I think that, considering the ill-will of some, we are sometimes obliged to sacrifice those parts of our freedom, always hoping that someday we will be able to recapture them, in justice and in peace.
We therefore support this measure for the good that it may bring about.
(Text):


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting and worthwhile resolution which has been placed before the house by the hon. member for Timiska-ming (Mr. Peters). If we did not have a great many other proposals before the house dealing with the subject of planning and the manner of spreading our productivity and the rewards of that productivity equitably across the country the resolution might be welcomed more by the house at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It now being six o'clock, the time appointed for the consideration of private member's business has expired and the house will revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.



NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nowlan for the second reading of Bill No. C-87, to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at five o'clock I was pointing out to hon. members that the economic development board act will be continuing a policy that was launched by this government when we first came into office in 1957. I had mentioned some specific examples of planning within government departments, and also inter-governmental planning as between the federal government and the provincial governments that have resulted in concrete benefits for Canada. This is particularly noticeable in the Atlantic region as well as in the prairie region.
Just to give an example of the impact that government programs and activities in the Atlantic area have had on the thinking of the people in that part of Canada I had a most interesting contact early in September with a group of Nova Scotians led by the provincial minister of resources, the Hon. Mr. Manson, who had come to Toronto to promote the advantages for people coming from Upper Canada to Nova Scotia in order to seize the economic activities that are available there at the present time. This is a complete reversal of the pessimistic attitude that used to prevail in this House of Commons. I can remember hearing hon. members from the maritimes crying at great length that all was lost, that they had been the neglected part of confederation and were without hope, but here in the citadel of Upper Canada this group of ambassadors from Nova Scotia were telling the good folk of Ontario that Nova Scotia was the land of promise for the future.
It certainly is a reversal of the thinking that was expressed in the Gordon commission report where, for example, one of the solutions for the continuing problems of the Atlantic region was a migration of maritimers from that part of Canada to the central part of Canada.
I am not going to go into any great detail on the attitude of the prairie region of Canada other than to say it is significant that both these areas which since the thirties -yes, you could even go back to the twenties and the 1910's-have been the areas of political protest in this country. Now they are no longer protesting. They have felt the beneficial impact of these carefully planned programs of this administration. Now we come to the next stage in the development program where it becomes necessary to get closer co-operation, as I indicated earlier this afternoon, between the private sector of the economy, between labour and management and the farmer and all the groups which 27507-3-187
National Economic Development Board make up the Canadian body politic. This has been one of the great areas of deficiency so far as implementing a national development program is concerned.
We have had to contend with regionalism. We have had conflict between groups, even between classes in this country, and now the time has come when we must think in terms of national development. This can only come about as the result of a greater consciousness of national purpose and national unity. I fully believe this legislation will make a major contribution in achieving this desirable objective.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding I would like to point out that the government recognizes the role it has to play in planning matters. We do not see ourselves as planning in the authoritarian sense or in the sense of governments where there is monolithic power controlled from the top. The government does have a specific role to play and I think this role has been demonstrated in the programs that we have already launched. As I see it, and as the government sees it, the function of government is to provide an economic climate that is favourable for development in all areas of the Canadian economy. Certainly this is true in regard to resource development. It involves fiscal and trade matters as well. My colleagues responsible for those matters will be outlining the role that a board of this kind can play in the policy areas of trade and finance. In the resource field we have been providing such an economic climate. We have been working with private industry to make available better transportation facilities and to provide the necessary conditions under which private enterprise can thrive. We have built railroads and roads and undertaken power development projects of rather large proportions because we believe adequate power is basic to an adequate development program. We have provided roads to resources of some 4,500 miles representing a total contribution on the part of the federal government of $75 million. We have built development roads north of the 60th parallel. When the program is completed these will represent an additional 2,000 miles of access roads. We have built airfields and airports. We will co-operate with private enterprise in the northern areas in assisting in the building of airfields that will bring into production the mineral resources that we now know are present in abundance in the north. We have brought into being complete modern communications facilities through radio service, as well as through modern telephonic microwave communications, both into the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
2954	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board
This has not been haphazard; this has been a carefully worked out plan. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might give the details of just one concrete example which is an ideal illustration of this sort of co-operation. I refer to the Pine Point railway which is now under way, which represents a capital investment of $20 million and which will bring into production the rich lead zinc deposit at Pine Point on Great Slave lake. Also, an additional $2 million investment will be necessary in connection with the townsite development. This will result in the annual shipment of 215,000 tons-this is a minimum figure-of lead zinc concentrates to the smelter at Trail, British Columbia. This will involve an additional expansion program of $16 million at the Cominco smelter and refinery at Trail. This has all been worked out carefully in the closest cooperation with the private company involved, and it has all sorts of ancillary benefits. There will be a saving of between $14 and $21 million on foreign exchange, which continues to be such a critical problem in Canada. It brings into production six million acres of rich agricultural land in the Peace river country. All in all it indicates what has been accomplished and what can be accomplished by governments and private enterprise working closely together.
In the area where the federal government has greatest responsibility, the territorial areas, where we still have direct control over the resources, we have gone even further in this sort of planning. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) who participated in this debate at an earlier stage; in the pre-Christmas period, as a matter of fact. He referred to this kind of development as the "vision of the north and all that sort of nonsense". Well, Mr. Speaker, a statement of that kind indicates that the hon. member is not at all aware of what has taken place north of the 60th parallel in the recent past. There is, unfortunately, a bias toward this program on the part of hon. members of the official opposition and the remarks have been critical almost without exception.
I remember reading a eulogy in connection with the passing of Stefansson, who was one of the pioneers in the development of the Canadian north. Forty years ago he was telling Canadians that there was tremendous potential in this million and a half square, miles of Canada, to which we had hardly given any attention whatsoever. We occupied it in a state of absentmindedness. This article eulogizing Stefansson indicated that he incurred the wrath of the Liberal government of the day because he named some of the islands in the Canadian archipelago after the Conservative


leaders, Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Meighen. This brought Mr. Stefansson into disfavour and brought about this prejudice that seems to have persisted down to the present time. We have named further islands in the Canadian archipelago and we have seen to it that all people in Canada, all groups in Canada, men who have made outstanding contributions, regardless of their partisan affiliations, have been recognized in this respect.
Let me emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of this northern development program 125 million acres of land are now under permit in the remote parts of the Canadian Arctic. Further, as a result the first oil well was drilled at Melville island just a year ago at a cost of over $1 million, and the company that carried on this extraordinary pioneering feat was an all-Canadian company. In fact, the principals were young Canadians typical of the men who have done much of the initial work of exploration in this part of Canada. In other parts of the Canadian north five oil wells are being drilled this year, and next year it is anticipated that there will be at least three wells spudded in on Bathurst island, which is in the extreme, remote area of the Canadian Arctic. These are just a few examples of what has been accomplished by careful planning and close co-operation.
Another development in the Arctic circle is the discovery of a deposit of high grade iron ore in tremendous quantity. It is now being investigated by the Bechtel Corporation, which is carrying out a feasibility study. This offers great potential in the future. We are extending our research activities. Up until a few years ago we were dependant on foreign sources of information concerning the economic potential of our north. At the present time an Arctic research development coordinating centre is under construction in the Mackenzie delta. We are launching a program of grants to the universities, with the approval of parliament when parliament has an opportunity to consider the estimates of my department. This will provide $60,000 to various universities across Canada to assist in their research on subjects pertaining to the north. My colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Martineau), working in very close co-operation with my department, has launched a comprehensive survey and inventory mapping program to determine the resource potential of the north
Education has not been forgotten either. The educational program now stretches into the remote parts of Canada. This now offers an adequate educational program for all Canadian young people. There are educational facilities for at least 65 per cent of the Canadian young people in the north. By 1967 we

hope to have educational facilities extended to every Canadian regardless of where he or she is resident. These are tangible results of the program, Mr. Speaker.
I had intended to go on to discuss our plans for power development. We launched the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act in 1958 to encourage the expansion of power resources in the Atlantic provinces in the interests of industrial development. Up to the present time under this act it is estimated that there has been a saving of $26 million, made possible by the first power grid system ever to be established in Canada. Savings due to the sharing of reserves and postponement of construction in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have been estimated by competent engineers to amount to $26 million. Over the next 20 years, the present facilities and proposed power developments in both provinces will tend to reduce power costs from an average of ten mills to something like seven mills at today's costs. Based on this experience, we are now moving forward to consider the feasibility of a national power grid which would make it possible to exploit the riches of our power resources, particularly in the northern parts of Canada.
To sum up, this act then is another step forward. This is not something which has suddenly been conceived as a solution to all our problems. The proposal to establish this board is part of a continuous and developing program which was launched by this government as soon as it was given a mandate by the people. It is the response of this government to the almost revolutionary changes which have been taking place in Canada as well as in other parts of the world since the end of the second world war. We rested on our laurels until the middle of the last decade-the decade of the fifties. There was very little attempt to bring in new policies to meet the changing situation.
In accordance with the traditional philosophy of the Conservative party we are bringing about changes on the basis of experience rather than expediency. The hon. member for York South criticizes the type of planning proposed as being inadequate. It was for that reason I mentioned in my opening remarks that we do not regard this as a solution to all the problems of this nation. Change is a continuing process. Governments and people must constantly adjust to the pressures of change. The only people who do not change are those who hold doctrinaire positions and who believe that once you have adopted a particular doctrine all your difficulties are solved. Once that policy has been 27507-3-I87i
National Economic Development Board adopted it has to be adhered to rigidly, whatever the consequences, because there is nowhere else to go. It is easy to simplify the problems which face Canada at the present time. The only simplicity which could resolve the problems which face Canada and the world today is the simplicity of monolithic unity and power and certainly we do not think in those terms in Canada.
My friends in the Liberal party advanced a slogan during the last campaign which they thought would appeal to the people of Canada. They said Canadians must take a stand for tomorrow. I should like to revise that slogan here tonight. I think the launching of this national economic development board justifies the alteration of that slogan. Tomorrow never comes. We believe we should be saying to the people of Canada: "Tomorrow must be faced today". That is just what we are doing in this legislation.
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, the bill that comes back before the house today was studied for a few hours during the month of December. It is dated November 28, 1962, but the speech from the throne referred to it two months before that date.
I wonder whether the bill that I now have here is useful and necessary or if it is not. If it is, the government does not seem to consider it as very important, since it has been delaying its passing for four months.
In my opinion, a general election in the present circumstances would have a much better influence on our economy than the establishment of a new board.
If the houses had been dissolved after the debate on the speech from the throne and ^ ^u election had been ordered, we would now have a new government to manage the country, a government which would even have been in power for two months.
If our honourable friends opposite are so confident to have popular support, the support of the voters, I wonder why they always delay to go to the country, as the official opposition asks. Unfortunately, it is not so. We are still merely marking time, while our economy is stagnant and the number of unemployed is increasing by 100,000 every month.
After beating about the bush and hesitating for three long months, that is since the opening of this session, the government now submits a plan mentioned in the speech from
2956	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board the throne, but in respect of which it hardly showed itself really willing to make any rapid progress-no more than for the other bills.
It is, indeed, the responsibility of the government to arrange legislation to be submitted to the house in such order that the more important bills are considered first.
As I read in Le Devoir last December, in an item signed Fernand Bourret:
The government Is chiefly responsible. It is up to the government to take action with regard to legislation. If no important legislation has as yet been submitted to the House of Commons, such as would, in time, remedy the economic and financial plight in which Canada finds itself, the fault does not lie with the opposition parties.
Now that we have been sitting for almost four months, this revolutionary formula which, according to the government, will bring about the recovery of our economy is at last submitted to the house.
In the remarks he made when the resolution preceding the bill was introduced, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) made some disconcerting statements, several of which are even an admission of the government's inability. He stated, among other things, as may be seen on page 2073 of Hansard:
The government is determined to stimulate the further expansion of our existing industries and to encourage even further the development in Canada of new and efficient industries.
And I repeat, he actually said:
The government is determined-
It is easy to conclude that the Minister of Finance is fully aware that up to now the government has not done much in that field.
When the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) said this afternoon, at the beginning of his remarks, that the purpose of the bill now before the house was to continue implementing the government's policy formulated since 1957, I was wondering whether he had not dashed the hopes of the house and of all those who will read his remarks, because should the future be as black as the past years have been I do not know where the voters will be able to see any hope of seeing better day. May I quote the Minister of Finance who said in his speech:
We shall attain that goalthat is, the expansion of our economy-
-by farsighted measures such as the one introduced by my colleague the Minister of Labour in undertaking research into the impact of automation and technological change.
The thing is clear: the minister had in mind a farsighted program of research. At the [Mr. Legare.l

present time Canadians must bow to the austerity program, but in a few years, after the national economic development board has been in operation for some time we might perhaps nurture the hope that the situation will improve.
The statement of the Minister of Finance contradicts the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who said in Ottawa, during the week end convention, that the next five years will be crucial for our economy. He was alluding to the bill now before us.
And now, the Minister of Finance tells us that this is a measure which will have long term effects, that is to say in several years.
On the other hand, we were told by the Prime Minister that the effect of the same measure will be to create jobs for a million persons and that it will improve the economy in the near future.
This is the most obvious contradiction as between two cabinet members I have ever heard.
But the statement by the Minister of Finance which astonished me most is the following:
With the present set up of the house, we must show a new national conscience.
This means that, with the results of the last election, we must change our positions, listen more carefully to the official opposition, and accept the suggestions it put forward two or three years ago, that is to set up the board provided for in the bill now before us.
The Minister of Finance brought his remarks to a close with these words:
We are not at all dissatisfied with the progress we are making.
He did not say: "We are satisfied, we are pleased, we have made some progress." He said:
"We are not at all dissatisfied."
I have to admit I have never heard anything so negative as this sentence:
"We are not at all dissatisfied."
I would be tempted to ask the Minister of Finance:-


David Réal Caouette: He is not here.


Gérard Légaré: An hon. member says that the minister is not here. I know that the minister has had to attend some important business elsewhere and that is why he is not in the house right now.


David Réal Caouette: Is he gone to Rimouski county?


Gérard Légaré: He says that he is not at all dissatisfied. I know that there are doubts in the

mind of the minister. His remarks show that the government regrets it did not act sooner. It is now facing a fact and it must also realize that the situation has somewhat worsened. It is becoming aware of the fact, somewhat tardily that it has not been able to keep up with the impetus given to our economy by the Liberal government until 1957.
Hon. members who have been in this house for a number of years remember the efficient men who were then managing the business of the country, and especially under the leadership of the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs, built up for Canada a reputation which all the countries in the world looked upon with envy.
Thanks to the constructive and practical action taken by the Liberal government in 1957 Canada had acquired the reputation of being one of the greatest exporting powers in the world. But since this government has been in power, we have come down one step -and yet we can no longer retreat, retrograde-


Paul Raymond Martineau: (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys): Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? In view of what he has just said, could he tell us whether he has taken cognizance of the statement made by President Kennedy, today, to the effect that Canada was enjoying the greatest economic stability among all industrial nations in the world?


Gérard Légaré: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon.
minister does not wish me to report statements made by outstanding personalities on what the present government has achieved in the international field in the last few years.
I was then saying that on account of the present government's policy, our country had come down a step, from the standpoint of exportation, and that we can no longer step backward, and that the visions of a prime minister are not adequate to ensure the progress of our economy.
I would add that the statements made by the leader of the official opposition has done more for the improvement of our international prestige, last week, on atomic weapons, than all the statements put together, made by all the members of the present cabinet on the same matter, in the last five years.


Gilles Grégoire: That is not what they say
in Rimouski. They are not wanted in Ri-mouski.


Some hon. Members:: They are trying to make Hitler live again.
National Economic Development Board


An hon. Member:: If you want to know, they will make Hitler live again.


Gilles Grégoire: They will know in Rimouski.


Gérard Légaré: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of his colleague, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, who was asking me a question a moment ago, stated during the consideration of the bill, that the government wanted, by this legislation, "to obtain all possible information in order to step up our economic growth". If I understood well, he said "all possible information". But he never thought probably that his statement was in contradiction with the present policy of his government, which has much more prevented than promoted the statement of opinions coming from outside the house, and which even objected to evidence being given by certain persons.
I refer to the Coyne affair and to some legal advisers of the government who could not be heard before this house.
The minister added:
This measure provides for the setting up of an advisory board whose main function will be to advise the government on projects and methods of expansion.
I would like to think the minister is sincere. If he is, indeed, sincere, he should see to it that this bill be amended so as to enable certain organizations to avail themselves of the services of experts, economists and specialists in the preparation of briefs or reports on certain areas.
When I am speaking of organizations, I mean, for instance, some chambers of commerce, or boards of trade, in less fortunate areas, and regional economic guidance councils, certain federations of the Catholic Farmers' Union, or some labour unions, or even some professional groups who have not the required means for making a survey in a given area, but, if given necessary assistance for obtaining expert services, might make some very worth-while suggestions to the government or to the proposed boards.
The government has already set up a board for the promotion of sport. It earmarked-at least it intended to earmark-an amount of $5 million to that end. Not even $2 million will be spent, but it had been announced all over the country, and more particularly during the last election, that $5 million would be spent for sport.
Well, if the government wants to spend $5 million for the promotion of sports, I trust it will agree to have a certain amount of money voted to promote the expression of various views through the channel of some organizations.
2958	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board
While inviting experts to appear before it, that board should try to obtain the views of some groups on the means of improving the economy of such and such an area, of such and such a sector or field of activity.
The functions and responsibilities of that national economic development board are but vaguely described in the bill. This bill should, for instance, include a study of the present economic situation, some searching as to the causes for this slowing up in the last five years. The board should also consider whether we are making the best use of our resources, evaluate our efforts in the field of research, and determine whether industry and the various governments are spending enough money to that end.
The board should also decide whether our present taxation procedure could not be improved in order to make our export trade more competitive on world markets.
It should also check, if possible, the fiscal charges imposed on foreign industries by their respective governments, which industries are competing with us on world markets.
Under its terms of reference, the national economic development board should also be authorized to look into the possibility or the advantages of making available to our industries, especially the small and medium-sized industries, acknowledged experts in their own field.
The convertibility of certain industries to the manufacture of goods that are more in demand and actually saleable, should be suggested and promoted.
The board could also try to ascertain how many new dwellings should be built each year.
Is this to be 50,000, 100,000 or 150,000? I feel the government should have this information.
The board should also be authorized to study the fluctuations of our economy over the last 10 or 15 years, to assess the causes of those variations, to set the annual rate of growth of our domestic production and to suggest means of maintaining it.
Many other duties could be assigned to the board. It could advise the government on the means of improving our service to exporters, of providing our industries with better means of coping with international competition, of making better use of the information available at the dominion bureau of statistics, of promoting the decentralization of industry and of studying the effect of immigration on our economy.


I know that a large number of immigrants represent a new wealth, on the cultural level for instance, but I have never been able to ascertain what was the true influence of immigration on our economy, and it seems to me that there should be a way to get an approximate figure, to reach the conclusion that immigration is a source of wealth, in this or that area.
According to the bill, Mr. Speaker, the board will have to report to parliament once a year. I think that the relevant section should be amended so that the reports would be made more frequently. In fact, if the government is satisfied with an annual report, parliament will find itself in the position in which it is now with regard to other crown corporations, in particular the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Canadian National Railways.
The government failed in its more or less well-advised efforts to create the climate necessary to the progress of our economy. That is the reason why we need a concerted effort today in order to get out of the situation where we find ourselves now.
Nobody can deny that it is possible to improve the present growth of our production. Nobody can deny that our standard of living can still be improved and nobody will deny either that the number of the unemployed is too high, but everyone will recognize surely that with more funds available we shall be in a better position to carry out our responsibilities in the world.
That is the reason why the official opposition supports this measure and hopes that the board will be established without delay so that we do not see a recurrence of what the government has done with ARDA and many of its other undertakings.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned ARDA because it was discussed for two years before it was passed, and even if it has been in operation for several months, I know that the work in practical terms, has not progressed much.
In brief, to start the economy moving again while maintaining monetary stability, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) must exert his influence on two different planes: on the one hand, he must develop investments and on the other, he must stimulate consumption and exports.
But our expansion and that fresh impetus to our economy must come about without the stability of prices being jeopardized.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we do not have to worry too much about the impact of the

National Economic Development Board
legislation now before us on our economy, because I hope that a Liberal government will be in power even before the board is in operation and a Liberal government will heed the suggestions made by the people in the way it has always responded to their wishes during its many terms of office.
One wonders-


David Réal Caouette: You have every reason to wonder.


Gérard Légaré: -if the government has truly sought, during the past five years, formulas to sustain the impulse given to our economy by a Liberal administration. I cannot find any such formula.
What are those great projects the government has devised and launched?
It continued the construction of the trans-Canada highway which was the work of a Liberal government.


David Réal Caouette: That is the tax system.


Gérard Légaré: It completed the construction of the trans-Canada pipeline, another Liberal project.


David Réal Caouette: C. D. Howe.


Gérard Légaré: It completed the St. Lawrence seaway, another Liberal project.


David Réal Caouette: Chevrier.


Gérard Légaré: And if I go down to the level of regions, I still see that it refused to step in and that it let the situation worsen.
In fact, in my riding, it failed to make a better use of the Mont Joli airport, in which a Liberal government had invested several million dollars.
In Rimouski, it failed to build grain silos, which had been requested from the government long before the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dumont) rode this subject to death.


Gilles Grégoire: When did you ask for it?


Gérard Légaré: At Trois Pistoles, there was a splendid opportunity to revive the economy by building a wharf which would have served the local trade, the local manufacturers who seek after the north shore market, and also which would have been useful for pilotage purposes.
And about pilotage, I regret the backward move of the government when they relocated the pilotage station from Father Point to the north shore, more particularly Les Escou-mins. I believe that such a step will one day have nefarious consequences and I am
afraid that we will have to deplore loss of life, if not heavy damage, at the present location of the station. And I make this statement after having consulted with experts in the field.
As a matter of fact, the old seamen, the experts with many years of experience in the field of pilotage are recommending the establishment of the pilot base on the south shore and I urge the government to reconsider the matter and to think about relocating it in Trois Pistoles, building a wharf which would not only serve the local trade, but also the needs of the pilot system. That, Mr. Speaker, is in one riding only. I could speak of neighbouring counties where no more work was done.
For instance, I could speak of the riding of Matane where harbour improvements and the construction of a landing strip have been promised for the past five years.
I could take the case of the neighbouring county to the west, the riding of Temiscouata, where the government promised to build a deep water harbour five years ago.
I could also speak of the county of Gaspe where the present government is committed to build a railroad line.
But I notice that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) would like me to speak about him. I will therefore say a word about the hon. member who has interrupted me on several occasions.
Actually, I was surprised to hear the hon. member speak on planning, and declare at least 20 times, on the radio, in the course of various lectures, or in this very house-


David Réal Caouette: When?


Gérard Légaré: -that he is dead set against any type of planning, whether it comes from the top, the bottom, the right or the left. Did he realize that he was in direct contradiction with his leader who, during the debate on the measure, spoke for planning? I quote:


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
(Text):


@Deputy Speaker: Order; I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Villeneuve, but I think that this is a matter for debate. It is something upon which he can take the floor in due course.


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a question of privilege. You put on the translation and you will understand in French.
2960	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Rimouski pretends that I have said the opposite of what the leader of our group, the hon. member for Red Deer has declared, to the effect that we are not in favour of planning-
(Text):


@Deputy Speaker: There was no contradiction by the member who had the floor of anything said by the hon. member for Villeneuve and for that reason I rose to my feet. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) could rise and contradict any allegation that might be made on a point of privilege in respect of any statement he made himself outside of this house. It was for this reason I said there was no point of privilege. I pointed out that it was a matter of debate and that the hon. member for Villeneuve, in due course, could take the floor and argue the point.


David Réal Caouette: On the same question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


David Réal Caouette: I submit I was personally attacked.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


David Réal Caouette: I was personally attacked. I am not going to accept this.
(Translation):


Mr. Habel:: Put on your beret.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Habel and his beret. He is wearing one-if only there were something under it.
(Text):


@Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the Speaker has the floor. I ruled that there was no point of privilege. I am satisfied that the hon. member for Villeneuve is capable of responding to any allegation made in respect of his own leader during the course of debate. I am sure he will do so in due course. In so far as personal privilege is concerned, I do not believe there is any point. The hon. member for Rimouski.
(Translation):


Gérard Légaré: Mr. Speaker, I understand, from the remarks that I heard, that he was in favour of planning; but here is what his leader said in this house, as is reported on page 2082 of Hansard:
Planning is in itself an excellent thing.


Gilles Grégoire: Planning of things and not planning of men.


Gérard Légaré: What we have to do-and I refer my hon. friend for Lapointe to page 2082 where the member for Red Deer told us:

Planning that permits people collectively to work together.
And further-
This is the kind of planning that such an economic development board must do if it is going to accomplish anything positive for the country.
If the hon. member for Villeneuve is still of the opinion that he is against planning, he will probably have the opportunity to discuss the matter in other circumstances.
Now, if the hon. member, on the other hand, does not like me to find him in contradiction on that point, I shall do it on another one. Thus, when he stated in this house that we must give more attention to producing domestic consumption goods and that trade and exports must come next, he was then contradicting his leader, the hon. member for Red Deer, who just came back from a tour to find outlets for the country.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote only a few sentences from an article I should like to put on the record. That article was published in the Quebec paper Le Soleil on December 3, 1962, under the signature of Mr. Antoine Turgeon. I quote:
Planning means to set up a very comprehensive plan or rather a series of plans to serve as guides for action in the economic life of a country, of a province, of a region. Planning is the act itself that can include a very complex chain of social and economic measures.
And further, the article says:
The main role of economic planning is to eliminate unemployment as much as possible, to promote full employment and, all in all, to give the best social security that can be found. To reach that goal, the situation must be studied locally, in all the regions, experts must be consulted, put to work at reasonable salaries, the domestic markets, local, regional, national, must be studied.
In fact, that is exactly what the Liberal party has been suggesting to the government for the last three years, that is since the economic situation began to deteriorate in our country.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I realize that my remarks have displeased my friends on the left, and I understand why. However, I would not like them to think that I will devote more time than I am allowed to correct the discrepancies and contradictions that may exist between the two leaders of that party, because I would need more than the 30 minutes I am allowed in this house.
(Text):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, for the last 40 minutes or so we have been listening to a speech which has touched on almost every subject except one which normally should form the object of the present debate.

I think it is essential that we concentrate on the merits of the measure which is before the house because there is no doubt that the formation of this national economic development bureau will contribute as much to the prosperity of this nation as the various measures which have been adopted by this government since it took power in 1957 have contributed to the welfare of the Canadian nation. When we took office in 1957 the economy, far from being in a stable state, was menaced by the shadow of a serious recession which could have achieved the proportions of a depression if it had not been for the energetic action then adopted by those whose duty it was to plan the welfare of the economy of the Canadian people.
In those days members of the opposition would frequently tell us that the moneys we were spending would inevitably lead to an inflationary trend which would be disastrous for the wage earners of the nation. They would tell us that this money was spent in a futile fashion because it would not actually remedy the ills from which this nation was suffering, ills due to the maladministration of the previous government, and they would try through preachings of gloom and doom, of despair and distress, to create a climate of fear in the hearts and minds of the Canadian people, thus hoping through this fear to regain the power which they had lost because of their own inertia while they were in office.
A few moments ago we were listening to the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Legare) who, following the usual trend of his colleagues in his party, was saying that the economy has been at a standstill since 1957 and was stating that things could hardly be worse in Canada. He was referring to what he termed our declining exports and was even mentioning that at the present time nothing is being done and that therefore the Canadian people are worried because of the state of the economy. Where he got the information that could make him talk in that particular fashion is something which I do not know, but what I do know are the facts such as they are at present, and the facts are well described in tonight's paper, the Ottawa Citizen, which has never had a high reputation for having an undue love for the Conservative party. That newspaper states tonight on its front page that President Kennedy has said Canada's price stability is the best in the world. I quote the report as follows:
President Kennedy estimated today Canada achieved the best record of price stability among all major industrial countries and that the United States is in second place in ability to crack an inflation psychosis.
This is the best answer to these prophets of gloom and doom who were stating in so many
27507-3-188
National Economic Development Board speeches all over the land that the policies of the government of which I have the honour to be a member would lead to inflation and would lead also to economic chaos in our industries. Now the hon. member for Rimouski, as well as other hon. members opposite, seem to take delight in trying to maintain that all that is being done by the government in the field of planning has led to negative results. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is because of the well planned actions of the Conservative government that today we can proudly say, together with John Meyer, the financial critic of the Gazette, that Canada has had its best business year since 1956. I now quote the article that Mr. John Meyer wrote as it appears in the annual review section of the Montreal Gazette of January 12, 1963:
Canada has best business year since '56.
Continuing expansion forecast through 1963 but sort of federal budget introduced is most pertinent economic question.
The increase of 8 per cent in gross national production which took place during the year is the largest since 1956 and the fourth largest since the end of the second world war. It was accompanied by the first real improvement in productivity since the mid-fifties. There was, at the turn of the year, every indication that the economy would continue to expand although at a slower rate. A 5 per cent increase in gross national production was being projected with a continuing proportionate increase in productivity. It is possible, though, that the figure may be understated.
Hardly more than three months ago, a turn-down of the business cycle through the first quarter was being freely forecast. It became apparent through the fourth quarter, however, that the economy was beginning to draw new impetus from the effects of devaluation and the import surcharges which followed, and from the series of fiscal measures which had been introduced earlier in the year by the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, this is the result of intelligent planning by intelligent men conscious of the necessity of serving the citizens of this country.
A moment ago we also heard the hon. member for Rimouski claiming that the export markets of Canada had been dwindling since the presence at the helm of this nation of the P.C. forces of Prime Minister Diefenbaker. Well, the facts are here to prove that, far from declining, our exports are up 30 per cent from the previous year, and a study of statistics will show that exports have increased by 16 per cent in the countries which are members of the common market, that they have increased by 36 per cent in Latin America, that they have increased by 38 per cent in the Far East and by even 90 per cent in countries behind the iron curtain. These are positive results which prove that hon. members opposite, when they claim the economy is going to the dogs are only, as always, trying to deceive the people into the
2962	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board belief that under the helm of this government things have gone from bad to worse when actually the facts are that things have improved and are still improving.
Once again, after the election, we were faced with a very serious crisis which required economic planning of the highest order. We then most reluctantly took drastic measures which were absolutely essential in order to restore the fiscal balance of the affairs of the nation. Again, concerning what we did, Mr. Meyer has written this:
The recovery from the crisis has been much swifter than expected. All of the measures taken to supplement reserves of foreign exchange have now been put aside except for the $300 million borrowed from the international monetary fund. The swiftness of recovery, in fact, now threatens to undo the lessons learned by encouraging a false sense of security which, in its way, can be just as damaging as was the earlier indifference.
It is exactly because we do not want to fall into a false sense of security that we are today introducing a bill to provide for a national economic development bureau which will group together the forces of finance, labour, industry, farming and of our university trained people who together, in a climate of respect and mutual understanding, will work in order to promote the greatness of this country and the welfare of the Canadian people.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, it would surely be ridiculous to rest on our laurels. We have accomplished a great deal. Thanks to the dynamic, imaginative and constructive action taken by members of the government to which I belong, we have succeeded in giving a fresh impetus to the Canadian economy toward the achievement of new records. We have succeeded in changing the threat of a disastrous recession caused by the inaction of the previous government into a period of unequalled prosperity in the history of our country.
Figures are there to prove it. Never before in the history of Canada have so many men earned so much money or have managed to save more money than at present. But we realize that when a record is attained, there is some danger that the economic situation will suffer a set-back. It is precisely because we want to avoid such a set-back that we are proposing the establishment of the national economic development board which will look into the Canadian economy from all points of view and attempt, through its vigilant action, to maintain prosperity at its present level and even to increase it if it is still possible.


Of course, this economic board must be based on the rules of free enterprise. It must not become, as my friends sitting on the extreme right are hoping for, a socialist planning board for, above all, we must keep the Canadian nation clear of that form of premature senility which socialism would be. My friends sitting on the extreme right are at least honest with themselves. As for my hon. friends opposite, they may see in this political formula an opportunity to win back the lost paradise, the power which they lost through their slackness on June 10, 1957. On the contrary, this economic development board must not be a merely governmental agency which, instead of helping private enterprise to lead the economy towards new records, leans towards socialism.
This board must be made up of free men, working in an atmosphere of freedom, who will take decisions which can assist those involved with the government. And so, we shall see the continuation of the prosperity brought about by the members of the Conservative party since June 10, 1957.
Mr. Speaker, it is of the utmost importance that the financial forces, on the one hand, and the labour forces on the other hand, find, thanks to this proposed economic board, a formula making way for a solution to the present problem of salaries which are so high in some industries that they compel industrialists to sell their products at prices beyond all competition.
For Canada, which can produce four times more than the demand of its 18 million inhabitants, it becomes necessary to go abroad for the markets which we need if we want to guarantee a continued productivity to our manufacturers, our industrialists and our farmers. We must go out in foreign markets and offer them products which can compare with those of our competitors at competitive prices.
This shall not be possible unless the forces of labour and those of capital get together. These two essential sectors of our Canadian economy must get together in an atmosphere of respect and mutual understanding so as to find, around a conference table, an answer to the problems which may be dividing them.
The proposed economic development board will allow us to find a formula, to find a solution to the problem between labour on the one hand, and capital on the other hand. And if this board can fulfil that purpose, it will not have been set up in vain and all should be satisfied.

This economic development board must be made up of men from all sectors of Canadian activity, even of men from all the political parties of the Canadian nation, so that all these men, working together, can find the ways and means to really improve the lot of this or that particular area which might, for some reason or other, find itself in a state of economical recession or of temporary depression.
The relocation of our industries is necessary. First of all, we have to determine the possibilities of developing our natural resources wherever they are. In order to do so, it is essential to find markets abroad, precisely in order to have the required consumption for that immense wealth which represents the production of our soil.
Thanks to the national economic development board, we should be able to increase the number of our secondary industries, because there is one thing which is not normal here in this country, and it is the fact that we should have to import too many finished products from abroad, which are being made with primary resources of our soil.
We must find a means of developing our secondary industries, or if you prefer, Mr. Speaker, we must find a means of transforming our primary resources into secondary industry products, which will be sold on our markets and exported on all export markets that we are trying to develop at present and that we shall keep on developing at a continually accelerated rate.
We must also consider-and that will be a function of the board-the necessity perhaps of moving industries which, at certain places, do not meet the needs of the people, thus being in an unfavourable situation, but which, elsewhere, might be able to find the necessary markets to insure their full productivity.
In order to do so, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely necessary to obtain the full cooperation of the leaders of private enterprise, on the one hand, be it in the field of finance, in the field of industry, in the field of trade, in the field of education, or in the field of labour and, on the other hand, of the leaders of the government, who will continue, as we have always done, to accept the advice of those who wish to ensure the welfare of our Canadian nation.
And, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what I have just said sufficiently proves that it is 27507-3-188J
National Economic Development Board essential to model our future actions on our past actions.
For the last five years, we have tried, thanks to our national productivity council, and to the continuous contacts we had with men from all spheres of Canadian activity, to find the formulas which would enable us to obtain the splendid success I mentioned earlier, which the Gazette of January 12 described in an article where it was pointed out that, from an economical point of view, Canada's best year since 1956 has been 1962.
We should also see that our Canadians earn and continue to earn more money thanks to an increased productivity, which will necessarily result from additional sales of our products abroad and thus justify, not only this year, but for the years to come, all those distinguished men, like the President of the United States, and others, saying that thanks to the action taken by this government, price stability in Canada has been, and still is, the best in the world.
Mr. Speaker, neither should, at any time, the truth be distorted, to satisfy political ambition. For almost five years, on the floor of the house or elsewhere, our friends opposite never stopped crying blue ruin and talking doom and gloom, thus constantly alarming the Canadian people by telling them that everything was going wrong and that they should bring back the old days, which, however, were rather sad days, as they, unfortunately, led this nation into that economic recession which threatened to become disastrous in the years 1956 and 1957.
This policy of trying to filch votes by wailing and speaking of doom and gloom is a fallacious policy, a policy misleading the Canadian people, a policy the sole aim of which is a political victory. But such victory, if it ever takes place, will certainly only have negative results, because it will not have been won by honourable means.
The necessary thing is that the opposition should play its part as such and try to enlighten the government and the people, rather than try to get votes by any means.
To say, as we heard earlier today, that since 1957, that is since the Conservative party came into power, things are going from bad to worse in this country, is simply a distortion of truth, a deliberate attempt to deceive the people.
Moreover, when anybody dares to tell in this house that Canadian exports have de-
2964	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board dined and not increased, it is another misrepresentation of facts, as they are. To say that the Conservative government did nothing, is another attempt to mislead the people.
Those men in the opposition should state facts as they are and ask the people to decide if they would be better able to improve Canada's position, rather than deny what has been done.
Their behaviour may hardly be considered as honorable political behaviour.
Mr. Speaker, I think we, who are responsible for the public weal, should unanimously join those who are trying to set up this national economic development board, for, in this way, we shall accomplish a necessary task in the best interests of the Canadian people.
In addition, I feel that the members of the national economic development board would be well advised to study closely what has been done in this field in foreign countries.
(Text):
I close my remarks by suggesting that the men who staff it, the men who will form part of this national development economic bureau, would do well to study what has been done by other nations which have adopted similar formulae and which have achieved success because of this formula. Recently I was reading from an interesting book written by the minister of economics in the West German government, Dr. Ludwig Erhard, in which the author explains the planning which was carried out and eventually realized in West Germany immediately after the disastrous days of world war II. Dr. Erhard explains in detail how the best brains of the German nation were grouped together to consider the question of rebuilding and eventual recovery, how a definite plan was established by these people and submitted to the German government for action. He explains that it was because of this planning which took place between the forces of free enterprise on the one hand and of government on the other that West Germany was privileged to know such a rapid reconstruction as took place in that nation.
When France found herself in a chaotic state prior to the advent, once again, of General de Gaulle to the helm of that state, bold remedies were necessary. Economic planning was instituted by this great man, whom I salute tonight. One of his first announcements after he took power was that he would recruit the best brains of France- this country which has produced so many magnificent brains-so that they might get


together and immediately submit a plan which would lead to the economic reconstruction of the country. Those days were not so long ago. Now, in the short space of four years, we see France occupying a position of primary importance among the nations of the world. Those who have travelled to France recently will have seen with their own eyes a prosperity the like of which was not known in that country even prior to the second world war. They will have seen new industries being built and new markets being found for the products of those industries; they will have seen a new life, a new ambition among the French people. These magnificent results are the fruit of this planning which was carried on by the men of free enterprise on the one hand and the men of the French government, under the inspired leadership of General de Gaulle, on the other.
Consider Japan, in the Far East, a nation which was an enemy of ours until a few years ago and which today has become one of our friends. What do we see? We see a booming economy which, once again, is the result of intelligent planning between free enterprise and the forces of the state. This is the way in which planning must be performed. We must at all costs avoid the pitfall of allowing one group to dominate the other. The state must not be allowed to get the upper hand over forces of free enterprise, neither must the forces of free enterprise be allowed to dominate the state. It must be a partnership. It must be an effort on the part of all the free men of this nation who by uniting and working together in a climate of mutual understanding and respect, will succeed in continuing the magnificent progress which has been achieved because of the efforts of this Conservative government, efforts which have led to the statement that Canada has experienced its best business year since 1956. We must not rest on our laurels. We must march forward and serve the Canadian people as it is our duty to do, and this can best be done by unanimously approving this national economic development board which will mark a new step in the progress of our nation.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened tonight to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) telling us in very glowing and rhetorical terms of the great achievements of the present administration. The conclusion would appear to be that in 1962 we seem to have reached or very slightly exceeded the production of 1956. We on this side believe this is far short of an accomplishment. Earlier we heard the Minister of Northern Affairs and National

National Economic Development Board
Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) speak about the accomplishments of the first "five-year plan". If these accomplishments under the five-year plan are something which this government is proud of, we as an opposition are not. Because it was only a few weeks ago that this administration answered certain questions. One was a question with respect to the net income of farmers in Canada. The answer which was given by the ministry indicated very clearly that every year this administration has been in power the net income of farmers has declined. This record is on Hansard and can be referred to if necessary. On another question of the government as to the productivity per capita of the people in Canada, it was clear that the productivity for every year on record has shown decline. This is in such sharp and marked contrast with what we find in western Europe or Japan, for example, we can come to no other conclusion but that Canada, with a growing population, has actually been relatively declining.
We know very well that our position in trade has relatively declined. Reference was made a few minutes ago to the fact that pricewise the Canadian dollar was stable, and for this we rejoice. One of the reasons is obviously the high and continuing rate of unemployment. In my community there is more unemployment today than a year ago, and it was serious then.
The fact is that over this past year we have had an ever mounting rate of bankruptcy so that the bankruptcy of 1960, increasing in 1961, and increasing still further in 1962, has been one of the reasons we have had stable prices. After all, if resources are going to be as little used as they have in Canada in the last two or three years, it is clear that we are not going to end up with inflation; but there are other problems.
May 'I refer, because the minister recently referred to the comments of President Kennedy, to the O.E.C.D. economic survey. You remember, Mr. Speaker, that the O.E.C.D. was set up in 1960 with its headquarters in Paris. It includes Canada and the United States among its 20 members. This survey says:
Concern over "deep-rooted problems" restricting Canada's economic growth is expressed in a report released Friday by the organization for economic co-operation and development. The lengthy survey of Canada shows that the balance of payments is likely to improve, but adds that it is unfortunate that the government chose stringent monetary measures which are almost bound to have an unfavourable effect on the course of domestic activity.
The report goes on to refer to Canada's slow rate of growth and says that persistent high unemployment and large deficits in the current external account were aggravated by
a short-lived but sharp exchange crisis in the first half of 1962. "The demand for Canadian products has not kept pace with Canada's policy to produce," the report concludes. This is reported in the Ottawa Journal of December 29, 1962, and is headlined: "Canada's slow rate of growth". I would also refer to the Toronto Telegram of January 7, 1963 where the headline is: "Economy dipping". Then a graph is shown which indicates that the boom in 1962, such as it was, is not dribbling into 1963. The paper says:
Our barometer records a drop taking place as we enter 1963 ... The recent gyrations of many indicators made many think that the slowdown predicted earlier for the end of 1962 had been called off. It has not.. .
The good that was in 1962 came to a close with the year. We have now started on a downward swing.
Mr. Speaker, none of the members of the Liberal party are responsible for writing anything in the Toronto Telegram, except perhaps an irate letter, and we read this article with some concern and fear.


David Réal Caouette: The Telegram is a Conservative paper.


John Ross Matheson: My hon. friend from Ville-neuve indicates that this is a Conservative paper. I would tell him that I do not think that it could ever be construed as otherwise.
Looking at the Financial Post for January 12, 1963 I observe this passage:
By an easy majority the sensitive indicators of how the Canadian economy is doing suggests that the 1961-62 expanson is over and the recession is now on.
This is an article by Dalton Robertson. It goes on to say:
Nothing in recent weeks contradicts the view that the economy probably lost most of its steam in the third quarter of last year.
As far as this legislation is concerned to provide for a national economic development board, we on this side endorse its principle. How could we do otherwise? You remember, Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) which came before this house in 1960. You remember the scorn with which he was met in this house by the then Conservative member for Vancouver-Kingsway, since departed, the then Conservative member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine, since departed, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), who unfortunately has not found it possible to be here tonight. I think the reason for his absence is that he would have had to eat his words which he delivered in his speech of May 23, 1960.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
2966	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Economic Development Board


Mr. Maiheson:: If any hon. members of this house would like to see what the Minister of Labour had to say-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to caution hon. members that the Chair would like to hear what is being said by the speaker who has the floor. Some of the contributions which are now being made irregularly from a number of places are not helpful in that regard.
I will hear the hon. member for Leeds.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I think the only proper word to describe the speech of the Minister of Labour on May 23, 1960 is scornful. He used certain language which appears on page 4166 of Hansard regarding the establishment of a national economic development board which would certainly be pretty hard for him to explain today.
We felt the need for this measure for some considerable time. The royal commission on Canada's economic prospects published their report in November, 1957, and we are fortunate to have with us one of the authors, perhaps the most important author of this publication, the hon. member who now represents Davenport (Mr. Gordon). I would remind hon. members of the house that this chapter which is entitled:	"The Role of
Government", sets out the objectives of governmental policies as being encouragement and promotion of steady growth and development over the long term periods, and the ironing out of peaks and valleys in the level of cyclical economic activity during short term periods, indicating that these two policies, although sometimes they do not run together, are nevertheless complementary, if there is some kind of orderly planning, foresight and thought.
I would particularly ask hon. members of the house to look at page 436 of the royal commission report, the chapter entitled: "The Role of Government". The concluding part of that page reads as follows:
We believe it might be helpful if a body of economic experts were established whose function it would be to inform the government of changes which might be thought desirable in economic policy in order to ensure a high level of employment without inflation. One responsibility of this body would be to publish annual or semiannual reports for the general information of the public. The success or failure of such an innovation would depend of course very largely upon the good judgment of the men who might be chosen for the task and also upon their reputations for objectivity and hence the confidence which the public would be likely to have in their opinions.
I should like to take the time in which to read that whole part of the page; however, I have not that time at my disposal.


An hon. Member:: Take the time.
[Mr. Matheson.l


Neil Alexander Matheson: However, to those who are interested I would suggest the fact that the idea of this bill before us today is set out in this 1957 report resulting from the economic study conducted in 1956. Why, in 1956, the best year Canada has had since world war II, did the Liberal people at that time consider the need for economic development? Then the chairman was of course not in the true sense a Liberal but a person appointed by a Liberal government to study what had taken place and to see what could be done that would ensure greater growth. I point out that in 1956 the Liberals were not satisfied with what was even then the production of the high peak year in the post-war period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Neil Alexander Matheson: The fact is that they knew there were problems and they knew that to sustain growth and development there were certain things they were obliged to face that other countries in the rest of the western world had had to face. Prior to that time they had the example, of course, of the Marshall plan in Europe, and the tremendous impetus that came under the Schuman plan. We have had reference to the growth of France, the development of E.E.C. and so on. I am very much attracted to a series of articles which has been published, and to appreciate the force of them you must read them as a series, by Mr. Patrick Nicholson. His theme is the Atlantic community. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that various proposals were put forward at the conclusion of world war II when we realized that there was an enemy to the free world both industrially and militarily. I refer to Russia. It was considered necessary that the west would conserve its forces and work together, that only out of a degree of interdependence could the western nations plan their way into economic growth and prosperity on terms that were compatible to people who love liberty and believe in enterprise. You will recall the various recommendations which came out at that time. Canada authored NATO. There is no question about that fact. We can refer for instance, to the speech of Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent in Berlin. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is smiling. He has made some very fine speeches to which I could refer. Mr. Nicholson writes: An increasing number of thinking people now agree with Hon. Gordon Churchill that "some form of political union between the members of the great NATO coalition seems essential."
This is thinking that has been echoed at some time in every political party in this house. The fact is that article 2 of NATO, the important article 2, was very much the creation of the Canadian delegation, and particu-

National Economic Development Board
larly authored by the prime minister's aide, Mr. Lester B. Pearson. Article 2 provided that NATO must not only be a defence organization but it had to go on beyond that, there had to be a degree of integrated planning between these great allies. The purpose was that we were going to develop these Atlantic nations as a community and the Atlantic community was going to embrace more than just Europe. It was Europe, the United States Britain and Canada. That is one of the reasons that, when Peter Thorneycroft in 1957 made a bold proposal for Canada to be integrated with the United Kingdom, we Liberals listened seriously because this seemed to us to be one of the means by which it was possible to work out a way or to plan our way into this integrated prosperous Atlantic community that would really become the cradle of new economic development. It did not work out for Canada. If we had had at that time this kind of economic advisory board which is envisaged in this act, I suspect that any government that had been in power in Canada in 1957 would have been obliged to take a much closer look at the Thorneycroft proposal.
I should be very much interested to conjecture if an economic advisory board had then existed what counter proposals to Mr. Thorneycroft might have resulted in the months or years following.
There would have been some alternative proposal to the United Kingdom, something which this government in five years has not been able to produce. What about now, when we are faced with a completely new change in the situation that is still not recognized by this government, that is the fact that Britain may be part of E.E.C.-demanding some change in our policy.
We had the reference earlier today by the now Minister of Justice but one time minister of finance, to his happy trip to Japan. I was interested to make certain comparisons. The Prime Minister of Japan, Hayato Ikeda of the Liberal democratic party on June 6, 1961, spoke of the various programs that his government had chosen and vigorously pursued in order to plan their way into economic growth. One of the things he said in that important speech to the forty first session of the Japanese diet was this, and I remind hon. members that this speech was delivered in June, 1961:
The fact that the question of Britain's adherence to the European economic community has become a practical issue of the day and the fact that the United States government is moving toward collaboration with E.E.C. alc-ng the line of its trade expansion bill presage the reorganization of the world economy.
This is Japan. It will be recalled that in two years Japan had increased its gross national production by nearly five thousand billion yen and had managed to keep its prices at the same level or very nearly stable while its consumer spending increased to a staggering degree. Some people speak of Japan's productivity increasing over 40 per cent. I indicate that this was a speech to the Japanese diet by a responsible Liberal Japanese prime minister. Yet a few weeks after that speech we find that at Accra the Hon. George Hees, according to United Press International, said this:
There is no substitute for the terms of access we are now accorded in the United Kingdom market... It is clear that damage, extensive damage, in some cases irreparable damage, would result from the loss of our present trading arrangements with the United Kingdom.
And the then minister of finance (Mr. Fleming), according to the Ottawa Journal of September 26, 1961, was reported as follows:
To set the record straight, Mr. Fleming last week called in leading British correspondents covering the international monetary fund meeting in Vienna. With great emotion, he argued that commonwealth countries were unanimous in their condemnation of Britain's attempt to join the common market.
Why did we not see trends evident to the Japanese?
Why do we need this kind of a bill? Why do we need a planning group? I think it is clear that the Liberals felt that even with the peaks we had achieved in 1956 and the first two quarters of 1957, such an economic advisory board would be desirable. Why did they have this feeling? People so frequently in this house refer to the 22 years. I always deny that reference. There were not 22 years. There was a series of years when the Liberal administration was given a mandate for certain specific jobs because different challenges faced Canada at different times. In 1935 the challenge was to get out of a very severe depression. That was the problem. That was the comparatively short term problem to which they had to address themselves. I submit seriously that in economic terms there was not any long range plan involved with respect to that program. The situation was so critical and so severe that what had to be done was done in the way of an emergency.
Then in 1940 Canada had another general election and it will be recalled that again there was no possibility of the long term view or the long term plan. Again it was an emergency situation where the Liberal party had a mandate to try to save what they could of our part of the world and the free world. Therefore all the energies of this country were devoted to throwing ourselves into the defence effort with our allies, and we did that. However, it was limited in
2968	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board scope. The object was to win a war. While it is true that in those five years or those war years people like Right Hon. C. D. Howe, to whom there has been reference tonight, in fact were thinking in longer range terms, and were thinking of the future, nevertheless the real political purpose of those years, as the older members of this house will recall, was to address ourselves to the problems of the war.
Then following the war there was an election with a short term problem, the problem of converting from war to peace. This problem did not permit the long range view. This problem did not permit the kind of view that Europe has been able to take with respect to the Marshall plan where Europe and the E.E.C. and even the outer six countries have been able to plot, to think out and develop ideas that would take many years, perhaps decades, to fulfil.
Then, following that period, we went into a period which was creative in so far as social security in this country was concerned. We were trying to attain redistribution of income in a more equitable and favourable way for various classes of people, the old and the young. Much of our social security was given at a time-I am just illustrating this point- when we can honestly say the Liberals were not thinking in long terms during that 22-year period. They were thinking only about the problems that were foreseeable in the immediate years before them then. Now, this is the big difference-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Ross Matheson: There is a bit of laughter in this house, particularly from the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). I would suggest, however, that this government has come to the point in its thinking that they are thinking about five months or perhaps five weeks ahead. I am thinking of the things they have done in the field of economics. I cite, for example, this "snafu" they got themselves into in connection with the devaluation. It was not one of choice.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: You do not approve of it?


John Ross Matheson: Unless we were grossly deceived in this country.


An hon. Member:: We were.


John Ross Matheson: Perhaps we were. On this side, we had the feeling that we were misled deliberately, misled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the then minister of finance (Mr. Fleming) in the matter of our exchange reserves.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Tell us about Bob Winter's speech in Halifax.


John Ross Matheson: I am saying that the feeling is growing in this country, and we believe this, that this country has been governed in the last few months and years on a purely ad hoc basis. In other words, when a problem arises we face that particular problem but we are not prepared to think more broadly and deeply, in more substantive terms.
This is one of the reasons that the chairman of the Gordon commission, in 1956, came to the conclusion that the time had arrived when Canada had to do the sort of thing that was being done in western Europe, Germany, France, the Benelux countries and Italy. We had to start thinking in longer terms. For example, we have witnessed the great developments that have been occurring in Latin America and the resultant change in trade patterns. We are not foolish enough to suggest there have not been new problems for this administration. There have been startlingly new problems. However, this administration has acted as though there has been no change at all. There has been very little flexibility.
For instance, five or six years after the recommendations were made and earnestly put forward, we find Bill No. C-87 before us which, with its tenuous terms, seems to set up a national economic development board. We just wonder how serious this government really is about planning the growth and development of Canada. I recall a few months ago attending a meeting of the bureau of statistics, I think it was, at which the guest was an economist from Washington who had been of great assistance to the Kennedy administration. He was speaking about growth. It was interesting. This meeting was under the auspices of a committee, the chairman of which was John Deutsch. It was interesting. I sat there as an outsider and heard questions put forward by economists to this expert. The real problem was this: what happens in a country if the real problems are not faced at all, ever?
Now, they have got to be faced. I think we have to be worried to some extent about the danger of trying to pass over to a committee, a council or a board, the responsibilities of the cabinet. Under our constitutional system, we cannot create something new that is neither a cabinet nor a civil service and say, this new board is going to be responsible for our growth. It has been indicated that this government has established a plethora of boards and agencies having closely related functions. The danger is that some of them might attach to ministries, some of them may simply be a basis, for instance, for the Minister of Finance to shore himself up against his

colleagues in the cabinet. He might say, "my board takes this view," or "the national economic development board supports my contention."
An earlier speaker today on this bill addressed himself to the problem of various advisory boards being set up and presided over by different ministers. It may well be that the time will come, if this board develops into something important, when it should be transferred to the office of the Prime Minister. Certainly, this can be a very important board. This board, through the integration of various key activities, has the duty to provide full production and has continuously to find more productive employment for the steadily increasing Canadian population. We believe that the Canadian gross national product, in terms of real value, has declined while that of all the free world countries has experienced an increase. The increase in western Europe and Japan has been startling. This has largely resulted from systematic and intelligent planning.
No longer is it a case of planning being evidence of a doctrinaire position. I find in the last submission of the Canadian Labour Congress to the government of Canada dated September 11, 1962, that they endorsed planning with great enthusiasm. They spoke of the importance of a national economic development board, particularly one which could function in a way that would bring together these various important factors of production, labour and management and also government. We find, too, that the day when there used to be opposition from management and capital is fast disappearing. If I had the time, and I do not have the time tonight, I could read from the Toronto Globe and Mail and from the Financial Times to indicate that there is on the part of capital a recognition that there cannot be any real, bold enterprise in this country unless capital is given the opportunity of knowing what the landmarks are for some foreseeable period ahead. They have got to be able to think and plan ahead, and labour has to be able to think this way as well. We should be able to work in a harmonious fashion, government, management, labour, agriculture and university people all contributing. I refer particularly to the universities because of their tendency to deal with some of these basic economic principles more objectively than management or labour or even the government can hope to do.
If we could have this kind of a body that would provide for some measure of continuity, would integrate the efforts of various ministries which are each trying to do the
Business of the House
best thing in their own particular area but each needing some long range guidance, then we might be in a position where we could advance and develop. I do not have time to read them but there were recommendations presented by Neil J. McKinnon, president of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, in his bank letter dated December, 1962. He referred to the need for a new approach in assessing Canadian problems, and I think his article is worthy of our thoughtful consideration. He says:
We cannot go on Indefinitely using up large quantities of imported consumer goods paid for by capital borrowed from abroad.
This is a problem which has to be thought out in broad terms and not under the ad hoc system of exchange control adopted by this government. The letter says:
We cannot continue to solve imbalances by future depreciation of the currency.
There is this continuing danger, and I believe mention was made of it by President Kennedy. I continue to quote:
Import quotas, which might become necessary as emergency devices in the event of additional pressure on the dollar will not provide a permanent solution-
We do not believe they will. He says, in connection with our trade relation to the United States, that our favourable trade balance with other countries is not sufficient to cover the payment deficit with the United States. For the longer run, we shall not be able to realize the optimum of economic progress without gradually increasing the integration of the economies of the two countries which would in fact make us more competitive in all countries.
This, sir, is perhaps the most compelling problem that we have to face, the extent to which we must become more integrated with our neighbours, the United States, the United Kingdom, the new European community, and I hope we solve this problem in the direction suggested in the proposal for an Atlantic community.
May I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: This afternoon the Prime Minister, on orders of the day, indicated certain business of the house for Thursday and Friday which was different from that submitted in the proposal by the house leader. The question I put to the house leader now is, what is the business for these two days, Thursday and Friday, as well as for tomorrow and Wednesday?

Business of the House Mr. Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, there will be a continuation of this debate. On Wednesday, which is a short day, I would like very much if the house would consider item No. 2 on today's order paper, the Freight Rates Reduction Act which we almost finished with before the Christmas adjournment. It is a matter of some urgency for financing purposes, and also No. 15 on today's order
paper, which we almost reached just before Christmas, the C.N.R. capital expenditures. The Prime Minister suggested today that on Thursday and Friday we would deal with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.


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


[Stage Direction]
The President and the Prime Minister met in Nassau from December 18 to December 21. They were accompanied by the Secretary of Defense, Mr. McNamara, and the under secretary of state, Mr. Ball, and by the Foreign Secretary, Lord Home, the Minister of Defence, Mr. Thorneycroft and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Colonies, Mr. Sandys.
The President and the Prime Minister discussed a wide range of topics. They reviewed the state of east-west relations in the aftermath of the October crisis in Cuba, and joined in the hope that a satisfactory resolution of this crisis might open the way to the settlement of other problems outstanding between the west and the Soviet union.
In particular, they reviewed the present state of the negotiations for a treaty ending nuclear tests, and reaffirmed their intent to seek agreement on this issue with the U.S.S.R., in the hope that this agreement would lead on to successful negotiations on wider issues of disarmament.
As regards Berlin, they reaffirmed their interest in arriving at a solid and enduring settlement which would ensure that Berlin remains free and viable.
The Chinese communist attack on India was discussed with special consideration being given to the way in which the two governments might assist the government of India to counter this aggression. Defence problems of the subcontinent were reviewed. The Prime Minister and the President are hopeful that the common interests of Pakistan and India in the security of the subcontinent would lead to a reconciliation of Indian-Pakistan differences. To this end, they expressed their gratification at the statesmanship shown by President Ayub and Prime Minister Nehru in agreeing to renew their efforts to resolve their differences at this crucial moment.
The two leaders discussed the current state of affairs in the Congo, and agreed to continue their efforts for an equitable integration of this troubled country. They expressed support for Mr. Spaak's proposal for a fair division of revenues and noted with concern the dangers of further discord in the Congo.
The Prime Minister informed the President of the present state of negotiations for U.K. membership in the common market. The President reaffirmed the interest of the United States in an early and successful outcome.
The President and the Prime Minister also
discussed in considerable detail policy on advanced nuclear weapons systems and considered a variety of approaches. The result of this discussion is set out in the attached statement.
Statement on Nuclear Defence Systems December 21, 1962
(1)	The President and the Prime Minister reviewed the development program for the Skybolt missile. The President explained that it was no longer expected that this very complex weapons system would be completed within the cost estimate or the time scale which were projected when the program was begun.
(2)	The President informed the Prime Minister that for this reason and because of the availability to the United States of alternative weapons systems, he had decided to cancel plans for the production of Skybolt for use by the United States. Nevertheless, recognizing the importance of the Skybolt program for the United Kingdom, and recalling that the purpose of the offer of Skybolt to the United Kingdom in 1960 had been to assist in improving and extending the effective life of the British V-bombers, the President expressed his readiness to continue the development of the missile as a joint enterprise between the United States and the United Kingdom, with each country bearing equal shares of the future cost of completing development, after which the United Kingdom would be able to place a production order to meet its requirements.
(3)	While recognizing the value of this offer, the Prime Minister decided, after full consideration, not to avail himself of it because of doubts that had been expressed about the prospects of success for this weapons system and because of uncertainty regarding date of completion and final cost of the program.
(4)	As a possible alternative the President suggested that the Royal Air Force might use the Hound Dog missile. The Prime Minister responded that in the light of the technical difficulties he was unable to accept this suggestion.
(5)	The Prime Minister then turned to the possibility of provision of the Polaris missile to the United Kingdom by the United States. After careful review, the President and the
[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister agreed that a decision on Polaris must be considered in the widest context both of the future defence of the Atlantic alliance and of the safety of the whole free world. They reached the conclusion that this issue created an opportunity for the development of new and closer arrangements for the organization and control of strategic western defence and that such arrangements in turn could make a major contribution to political cohesion among the nations of the alliance.
(6)	The Prime Minister suggested and the President agreed that for the immediate future a start could be made by subscribing to NATO some part of the forces already in existence. This could include allocations from United States strategic forces, from United Kingdom bomber command, and from tactical nuclear forces now held in Europe. Such forces would be assigned as part of a NATO nuclear force and targeted in accordance with NATO plans.
(7)	Returning to Polaris, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that the purpose of their two governments with respect to the provision of the Polaris missiles must be the development of a multilateral NATO nuclear force in the closest consultation with other NATO allies. They will use their best endeavors to this end.
(8)	Accordingly, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that the U.S. will make available on a continuing basis Polaris missiles (less warheads) for British submarines. The U.S. will also study the feasibility of making available certain support facilities for such submarines. The U.K. government will construct the submarines in which these weapons will be placed and they will also provide the nuclear warheads for the Polaris missiles. British forces developed under this plan will be assigned and targeted in the same way as the forces described in paragraph 6.
These forces, and at least equal U.S. forces, would be made available for inclusion in a NATO multilateral nuclear force. The Prime Minister made it clear that except where H.M.G. may decide that supreme national interests are at stake, these British forces will be used for the purposes of international defence of the western alliance in all circumstances.
(9)	The President and the Prime Minister are convinced that this new plan will strengthen the nuclear defence of western alliance. In strategic terms this defence is indivisible, and it is their conviction that in all ordinary circumstances of crisis or danger, it is this very unity which is the best protection of the west.
(10)	The President and the Prime Minister agreed that in addition to having a nuclear shield it is important to have a non-nuclear sword. For this purpose they agreed on the importance of increasing the effectiveness of their conventional forces on a worldwide basis.
Following is text of joint communique agreed by Mr. Diefenbaker and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan.
Joint Communique
Following on their joint meeting with President Kennedy, the Prime Ministers of Canada and the United Kingdom had discussions in Nassau from Dec. 21-22.
The foreign secretary, Lord Home, took part in some of these.
The two prime ministers discussed a wide range of topics which had been on the agenda for Prime Minister Macmillan's talks with President Kennedy. In particular, Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Macmillan reviewed the state of east-west relations, including the problem of nuclear tests and disarmament, and expressed the hope that the present situation might offer opportunities for constructive moves in the problems outstanding in these fields.
They also reviewed the situation in the Indian subcontinent and Prime Minister Diefenbaker expressed his strong support for the declaration by President Kennedy and Mr. Macmillan about the desirability of a reconciliation of Indian and Pakistan differences.
The two prime ministers also discussed the situation in the Congo and agreed on the desirability of a peaceful solution which would promote the unity of that country and prevent further discord.
The two prime ministers exchanged views about the current negotiations for British membership of the common market and affirmed the importance of close consultation in this regard.
The two prime ministers expressed their strong conviction of the vital role which the commonwealth can play in the improvement of understanding between nations, in promoting the cause of freedom, and in the solution of world problems.
They also stated their satisfaction at the unique opportunity which the commonwealth provides for close, friendly and continuing consultations. Such consultations are in themselves an expression of the vitality of the commonwealth and of its increasing usefulness in the service of mankind.
Nassau, the Bahamas December 22, 1962


[Stage Direction]
January 12, 1963.
[Stage Direction]
The first meeting of the Canada-Japan ministerial committee was held at the ministry of foreign affairs, Tokyo, on January 11 and 12, 1963.
Canada was represented at the meeting by Hon. Donald M. Fleming, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Hon. J. Angus MacLean, Minister of Fisheries, Mr. David Sim, deputy minister of national revenue, Mr. N. A. Robertson, under secretary of state for external affairs, Mr. J. A. Roberts, deputy minister of trade and commerce and Mr. W. F. Bull, Canadian ambassador to Japan.
Japan was represented by Hon. Masayoshi Ohira, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Hon, Kakuei Tanaka, Minister of Finance, Hon. Seishi Shigemasa, Minister for Agriculture and Forestry, Hon. Hajime Fukuda, Minister for International Trade and Industry and Hon. Kiichi Miyazawa, Minister of State and Director-General of Economic Planning Agency, and Mr. Nobuhiko Ushiba, Japanese ambassador to Canada.
The committee discussed the whole range of the trade and economic relations between Canada and Japan as well as their trade and economic relations with the rest of the world.
[Stage Direction]
The Canadian ministers outlined the growth which has taken place in the Canadian economy. They explained that the rapidly growing labour force in Canada must largely find employment opportunities in secondary industry. The Japanese ministers reviewed the significant achievements in the development of the Japanese economy and stressed the importance to Japan of expanded foreign trade. The committee examined the balance of payments problems of both countries and noted the progress that was being made toward their solution.
There was an exchange of views about the trade relations between the two countries. The ministers of the two countries reviewed the growth of trade between Canada and Japan. The committee agreed that there existed good opportunities for further expansion of trade between Canada and Japan. In the course of the discussion, the annual consultations for Japan's export restraints were reviewed at some length. The committee agreed on the desirability of concluding the consultations as quickly as possible.
The committee did not enter into the details of the current consultations for 1963, but it had a full exchange of views on the fundamental principles governing such consultations. The committee believed that such frank exchange of views would make a significant contribution to increased understanding between the two countries of their mutual trade relations.
The Japanese ministers reaffirmed the principle of orderly marketing of Japanese exports to Canada of products competitive with Canadian production in order to avoid injury to Canadian industries. At the same time they emphasized the Japanese desire to see gradual expansion of exports of commodities subject to voluntary restriction and removal of such restraints as soon as the Canadian situation permits.
The committee reviewed recent progress made in the liberalization of imports into Japan. The Canadian ministers asked that as further progress became possible Japan should keep in mind Canada's interest in certain products. The Canadian ministers urged that quantitative restrictions should not be replaced by tariff increases or other restrictive devices.
The committee took note of the assurances of the Canadian government that the Canadian temporary import surcharges would be eliminated as quickly as Canada's balance of payments position permits.
The committee examined recent developments in international economic relations. The committee took special note of the joint initiative taken by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States in calling for a meeting of ministers to set in train a broad program for the liberalization and expansion of trade. The committee welcomed the fact that this meeting would take place under the auspices of GATT in the early part of 1963. The committee stressed the importance of achieving the broadest participation in the tariff negotiations which would follow the meeting of ministers and emphasized that such negotiations must be based upon the unconditional most favoured nation principle. The committee recognized the need to make progress in all sectors of trade.
The ministers reviewed the efforts being made by Canada and Japan to assist economic progress in the developing countries and noted that both countries were co-
[Stage Direction]
operating together in this field in various international bodies. They recognized that the economic progress of the developing countries required not only financial assistance but also expanding export opportunities for their products. The committee noted that this would be a major objective of the forthcoming U.N. conference on trade and development. They agreed that Canada and Japan should work closely together in the preparatory committee in order to ensure the achievement of meaningful and constructive results.
The Canadian delegation expressed the strong support of the Canadian government for increased participation by Japan in the organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD) and full Japanese membership therein.
The committee discussed a number of fisheries matters. There was an exchange of information and views on the present conditions of the respective domestic fishing industries as well as on the international aspect of
fisheries. The importance of fisheries for the economies of the two countries and the significance of international co-operation for the sound promotion of fisheries were emphasized.
It was agreed that negotiations be initiated between the two governments for the conclusion of an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation in view of the need for further strengthening of economic relations between the two countries.
[Stage Direction]
The ministers of the two countries were unanimously agreed that the Canada-Japan ministerial committee which was established by Prime Minister Ikeda and Prime Minister Diefenbaker in June 1961 was of great value for the development of better mutual understanding between the two countries. Accordingly this highly successful first meeting was of historic importance.
The committee accepted the invitation of the Canadian government to hold its next meeting in Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Following is the text of a letter dated December 19, 1962 from Chairman Khrushchov to President Kennedy.
Dear Mr. President,
In our recent correspondence related to the events in the Caribbean area we have touched on the question of the cessation of nuclear weapon tests. Today I would like to come back again to that problem and to set forth my views concerning possible ways of its speediest solution which would be mutually acceptable to both our sides.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that the time has come now to put an end once and for all to nuclear tests, to draw a line through such tests. The moment for this is very very appropriate. Left behind is a period of utmost acuteness and tension in the Caribbean. Now we have untied our hands to engage closely in other urgent international matters and, in particular, in such a problem which has been ripe for so long as the cessation of nuclear tests. A certain relaxation of international tension which has emerged now should in my view facilitate this.
The U.S.S.R. does not need war. I think that war does not promise bright prospects for the U.S.A. either. If in the past after every war America used to increase its economic potential and to accumulate more and more wealth, now war with the use of modern
rocket-nuclear weapons will stride across seas and oceans within minutes. Thermonuclear catastrophe will bring enormous losses and sufferings to the American people as well as to other peoples on earth. To prevent this we must on the basis of complete equality and with just regard for each other's interests develop between ourselves peaceful relations and solve all issues through negotiations and mutual concessions.
One of such questions with which the governments of our countries have been dealing for many years is the question of concluding a treaty banning all tests of nuclear weapons.
Both of us stand on the same position with regard to the fact that national means of detection are sufficient to control banning experimental nuclear explosions in outer space, in the atmosphere and under water. So far, however, we have not succeeded in finding a mutually acceptable solution to the problem, of the cessation of underground tests. The main obstacle to an agreement is the demand by the American side of international control and inspection on the territories of nuclear powers over cessation of underground nuclear tests. I would like to believe that you yourself understand the rightness of our arguments that now national means are sufficient to control also this kind of tests and be sure that agreement is observed by any side. But

so far you do not want to recognize openly this actual state of things and to accept it as a basis for concluding without delay an agreement on the cessation of tests.
Striving to find a mutually acceptable basis for agreement, the U.S.S.R. has made lately an important step toward the west and agreed to installing automatic seismic stations. This idea, as is known, was put forward not by us. It was introduced by British scientists during the recent meeting in London of the participants of the Pugwash movement. Moreover, it is well known to us that when this idea was proposed it was not alien to your scientists who were in London at that time.
We proposed to instal such stations both near	the borders	of	nuclear	powers	and
directly on their territories. We stated our agreement that three such stations be installed on the territory of the U.S.S.R. in the zones most frequently subjected to earthquakes. There are three such zones in the U.S.S.R. where these stations can be installed: central Asian, Altaian and Far Eastern.
In	the opinion	of	soviet scientists,	the
most suitable places for locating automatic seismic stations in the U.S.S.R. are:	the
[Stage Direction]
area of the city of Kokchetav for the central Asian zone of the U.S.S.R.; the area of the city of Bodaibo for the Altaian zone; and the area
[Stage Direction]
of the city
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
Yakutsk
[Stage Direction]
for the
[Stage Direction]
Far
[Stage Direction]
Eastern zone. However, should, as a result of the exchange
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
opinion
[Stage Direction]
between
[Stage Direction]
our
[Stage Direction]
representatives, other places be suggested for locating automatic seismic stations in these seismic zones, we will be ready to discuss this question and find a mutually acceptable solution.
Beside the above said zones there are two more seismic zones in the U.S.S.R.-the Caucasian and the Carpathian. However these zones are so densely populated that conducting nuclear tests there is practically excluded.
Of course, delivery to and from the international center of appropriate sealed equipment for its periodic replacement at automatic seismic stations in the U.S.S.R. could well be made by Soviet personnel and on Soviet planes. However, if for such delivery of equipment to and from automatic seismic stations participation of foreign personnel were needed, we would agree to this-also having taken, if necessary, precautionary measures against the use of such trips for reconnaissance. Thus our proposal on automatic seismic stations includes elements of international control. This is a major act of good will on the part of the U.S.S.R.
I will tell you straightforwardly that before making this proposal I have consulted thoroughly the specialists; and after such consultation my colleagues in the government and I came to the conclusion that, so far as the U.S.S.R. is concerned, the above said considerations on the measures on our part are well founded, and it seems to us they should not cause objections on the part of the American side.
You, Mr. President, and your representatives point out that without at least a minimum number of on-site inspections you will not manage to persuade the U.S.A. Senate to ratify an agreement on the cessation of tests. This circumstance, as we understand, ties you and does not allow you to sign a treaty which would enable all of us to abandon for good the grounds where nuclear weapons are tested. Well, if this is the only difficulty on the way to agreement, then for the noble and humane goal of ceasing nuclear weapon tests we are ready to meet you halfway in this question.
We noted that, on last October 30, in conversation with first deputy foreign minister of the U.S.S.R., V. V. Kuznetsov in New York, your representative, Ambassador Dean, stated that in the opinion of the United States government, it would be sufficient to carry out 2-4 on-site inspections each year on the territory of the U.S.S.R. According to Ambassador Dean's statement, the U.S.A. would also be prepared to work out measures which would rule out any possibility of carrying on espionage under cover of these inspection trips, including such measures as the use of Soviet planes piloted by Soviet crews for transportation of inspectors to the sites, screening of windows in the planes, prohibition to carry photo cameras, etc.
We took all this into account; and, in order to overcome the deadlock and to arrive at last at a mutually acceptable agreement, we would agree, in those cases when it would be considered necessary, to 2-3 inspections a year on the territory of each of the nuclear powers in the seismic areas where some suspicious earth tremors might occur. It goes without saying that the basis of control over an agreement on an underground nuclear test ban would be the national means of detection in combination with automatic seismic stations. On-site inspections could be carried out with the precautions mentioned by Ambassador Dean against any misuse of control for purposes of espionage.
We believe that now the road to agreement is straight and clear. Beginning from January 1, 1963, the world can be relieved of the roar of nuclear explosions. The peoples are waiting for this; this is what the United Nations general assembly has called for. With the elimination of the Cuban crisis we relieved mankind of the direct menace of the combat use of lethal nuclear weapons
[Stage Direction]
that impended over the world. Can't we solve a far simpler question-that of the cessation of experimental explosions of nuclear weapons-in peaceful conditions? I think that we can and must do it. Here lies now our duty before the peoples of not only our countries but of all other countries. Having solved promptly also this question- and there are all the preconditions for that -we shall be able to facilitate working out an agreement on disarmament and with even more confidence proceed with solving other urgent international problems which we and you unfortunately are not short of.
Sincerely,
N. Khrushchov.
Following is the text of a letter dated December 28, 1962 from President Kennedy to Chairman Khrushchov.
Dear Mr. Chairman,
I was very glad to receive your letter of December 19, 1962 setting forth your views on nuclear tests. There appear to be no differences between your views and mine regarding the need for eliminating war in this nuclear age. Perhaps only those who have the responsibility for controlling these weapons fully realize the awful devastation their use would bring.
Having these considerations in mind and with respect to the issue of a test ban, I therefore sincerely hope that the suggestions that you have made in your letter will prove to be helpful in starting us down the road to an agreement. I am encouraged that you are prepared to accept the principle of on-site inspections. These seem to me to be essential, not just because of the concern of our congress, but because they seem to us to go to the heart of a reliable agreement ending nuclear testing.
If we are to have peace between systems with far reaching ideological differences, we must find ways for reducing or removing the recurring waves of fear and suspicion which feed on ignorance, misunderstanding or what appears to one side or the other as broken agreements. To me the element of assurance is vital to the broader development of peaceful relationships.
With respect to the question of on-site inspections I would certainly agree that we [DOT]could accept any reasonable provision which you had in mind to protect against your concern that the on-site inspectors might engage in "espionage" en route to the area of inspection. In a statement at the United Nations, Ambassador Stevenson suggested that the U.S.A. would accept any reasonable security provision while the inspectors were being taken to the site, so long as they had reasonable provision for satisfying themselves that
they were actually at the intended location and had the freedom necessary to inspect the limited designated area.
With respect to the number of on-site inspections, there appears to have been some misunderstanding. Your impression seems to be that Ambassador Dean told Deputy Minister Kuznetsov that the U.S.A. might be prepared to accept an annual number of on-site inspections between two and four. Ambassador Dean advises me that the only number which he mentioned in his discussions with Deputy Minister Kuznetsov was a number between eight and ten. This represented a substantial decrease in the request of the U.S.A., as we had previously been insisting upon a number between twelve and twenty. I had hoped that the U.S.S.R. would match this motion on the part of the U.S.A. by an equivalent motion in the figure of two or three onsite inspections which it had some time ago indicated it might allow.
I am aware that this matter of on-site inspections has given you considerable difficulty, although I am not sure that I fully understand why this should be so. To me an effective nuclear test ban treaty is of such importance that I would not permit such international arrangements to become mixed up with our or any other national desire to seek other types of information about the U.S.S.R. I believe quite sincerely that arrangements could be worked out which would convince you and your colleagues that this is the case.
But in this connection your implication that on-site inspections should be limited to seismic areas also gives us some difficulty. It is true that in the ordinary course we would have concern about events taking place in the seismic areas. However an unidentified seismic event coming from an area in which there are not usually earthquakes would be a highly suspicious event. The U.S.A. would feel that in such a circumstance the U.S.S.R. would be entitled to an on-site inspection of such an event occurring in our area and feels that the U.S.A. should have the same rights within its annual quota of inspections.
Perhaps your comment would be that a seismic event in another area designated for inspection might coincide with a highly sensitive defense installation. I recognize this as a real problem but believe that some arrangement can be worked out which would prevent this unlikely contingency from erecting an insuperable obstacle.
Your suggestion as to the three locations in the U.S.S.R. in which there might be unmanned seismic stations is helpful, but it does not seem to me to go far enough. These stations are all outside the areas of highest seismicity and therefore do not record all

of the phenomena within those areas. These stations would be helpful in increasing the detection capability of the system but I doubt that they would have the same value in reducing the number of suspicious seismic events by identifying some as earthquakes. For this purpose unmanned seismic stations should be in the areas of highest seismicity not outide them. To achieve this result there would be need for a number of stations in the vicinity of the Kamchatka area and a number in the Tashkent area. It might be possible, of course, to reduce somewhat the number actually in the U.S.S.R. by arranging stations in Hokkaido, Pakistan and Afghanistan. If the stations on Soviet territory were sited in locations free from local disturbances and could be monitored periodically by competent U.S.A. or international observers who took in portable seismometers and placed them on the pedestals it would be very helpful in reducing the problem of identification.
You have referred to the discussion of the "black box" proposal at the tenth Pugwash conference in London in September of this year as a U.K. proposal to which the U.S.A. has agreed. I do not believe that this was the situation. This proposal was reported to me as a Soviet proposal which was discussed with some U.S.A. scientists. Of the U.S.A. scientists who signed the statement, none represented the U.S.A. government or had discussed the matter with responsible officials. All were speaking as individuals and none were seismologists. Their agreement does not signify anything other than that this was an area which justified further study. The U.S.A. government has given it that study and the results have been the conclusions which I have indicated above.
Notwithstanding these problems I am encouraged by your letter. I do not believe that any of the problems which I have raised are insoluble, but they ought to be solved. I wonder how you think we might best proceed with these discussions which may require some technical development. It occurs to me that you might wish to have your representative meet with Mr. William C. Foster, the director of our arms control and disarmament agency, at a mutually convenient place such as New York or Geneva. I will be glad to have your suggestions. After talks have been held we will then be in a position to evaluate where we stand and continue our work together for an effective agreement ending all nuclear tests.
Following is the text of a letter dated January 7, 1963 from Chairman Khrushchov to President Kennedy.
Dear Mr. President,
I received your reply to my message of
December 19, 1962, I am satisfied that you have appraised correctly the Soviet government's proposals set forth in that message, as directed to securing in the very near future a ban on all tests of nuclear weapons.
We understand your answer as meaning that you do not object that national means of detection together with automatic seismic stations should be the basis for control over an agreement banning underground nuclear tests. We note your agreement that installation of automatic seismic stations will prove useful from the point of view of increasing the effectiveness of control over the cessation of underground nuclear explosions. During the Geneva talks it was justly observed also by your representatives that installation of such seismic stations would serve as a good means of verifying the correctness of the functioning of national seismic stations. It is precisely by these considerations that the Soviet government was guided in proposing that the idea of installing automatic seismic stations put forward at the Pugwash meeting of scientists be utilized.
In my message of December 19, 1962, I indicated those three areas where, in the opinion of our scientists, automatic seismic stations should be set up on the territory of the U.S.S.R. Those areas were selected after a thorough study with comprehensive consideration being given to geological and seismic conditions in those places.
In the areas of Kokchetav and Bodaibo, automatic seismic stations would be located according to our suggestion at the exposures of crystalline rocks, while in the Yakutsk area-in the zone of eternal congelation. As is known, on crystalline rocks and on grounds frozen deep down, always only minor seismic hindrances are noticed, which facilitates reliable detection of underground nuclear explosions. In combination with seismic stations abroad on territories adjacent to the seismic zones in the U.S.S.R., automatic stations located in the above mentioned points will be an adequate means, capable of removing possible doubts of the other side with regard to the correctness of the functioning of the national seismic station network.
You did not make any comments on the location of an automatic seismic station for the Altai zone in the region of the city of Bodaibo and thus we could consider this question as agreed upon.
However, you have doubts as to the location of automatic seismic stations for the other seismic zones in the U.S.S.R.-the Far Eastern and the central Asian ones. As far as those zones are concerned, in your opinion it. would be expedient to place such stations in the Kamchatka area and in the area of Tashkent. In the opinion of Soviet scientists plac-
[Stage Direction]
ing automatic seismic stations in the areas of Tashkent and Kamchatka would be a worse variant as compared to the one that we propose, because in those areas the functioning of automatic stations will be seriously handicapped by seismic hindrances. But if you believe it more expedient to relocate those stations we will not object to that. In my message to you I have already pointed out that the U.S.S.R. is prepared to seek a mutually acceptable solution also in the question of the location of automatic seismic stations. We would agree to relocate the automatic seismic station for the central Asian zone of the U.S.S.R. to the Lashkent area, placing it near the city of Samarkand; and for the Far Eastern zone-to place the automatic station at Seimchan which is part of the Kamchatka seismic area.
Location of an automatic seismic station on the Kamchatka peninsula itself seems in the opinion of Soviet scientists clearly unacceptable, in view of strong hindrances caused by the proximity of the ocean and strong volcanic activity in the peninsula itself which will inevitably hamper normal functioning of a station. It appears to us that thus we could consider as agreed upon also the question of the location of automatic seismic stations for the central Asian and Far Eastern zones of the U.S.S.R.
The Soviet government having consulted its specialists came to the conclusion that it is quite enough to install three automatic seismic stations on the territory of the U.S.S.R.-the more so since in your message, Mr. President, the possibility is envisaged of setting up automatic seismic stations on territories adjacent to the seismic zones in the U.S.S.R.: on the Hokkaido, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, naturally with the consent of the respective governments.
The Soviet government has named definite areas for the location of automatic seismic stations on the territory of the U.S.S.R. Moreover, Mr. President, taking into account your wishes, we agree to relocate two stations to new places. We are entitled to expect, therefore, that your side also will name definite areas where such stations should be set up on the territory of the U.S.A., and that in reaching an agreement on the sites where stations are to be placed the American side will take into account our wishes.
Mr. President, we are convinced that all the conditions exist now for reaching an agreement also on the question of inspection. It is known that all the time recently, we heard repeatedly from the western side- agree in principle to inspection and then the road to agreement will be open. We believed and we continue to believe now that in general inspection is not necessary; and if we give our consent to an annual quota of 2-3
inspections, this is done solely for the purpose of removing the remaining differences for the sake of reaching agreement.
As you see, we have made a serious step in your direction. The quota of inspections on the territory of each of the nuclear powers that we propose is sufficient. Indeed in the negotiations your representatives themselves recognized that there is no need to verify all or a greater part of the significant suspicious phenomena to restrain states from attempts to violate the treaty. And they gave figures of annual inspections practically equalling the quota proposed by us. Naturally it is most reasonable to carry out inspection in seismic areas where the biggest number of unidentified seismic phenomena may occur. However, if you consider it necessary, we have no objection to inspection being carried out also in non-seismic areas, provided such inspections are conducted within the annual quota indicated by us.
I noticed that in your reply you agree with the necessity of taking reasonable measures of precaution which would exclude the possibility of using inspection trips and visits to automatic seismic stations for the purpose of obtaining intelligence data. Of course, in carrying out on-site inspection there can be circumstances when in the area designated for inspection there will be some object of defence importance. Naturally in such a case it will be necessary to take appropriate measures which would exclude the possibility of causing damage to the interests of security of the state on the territory of which inspection is carried out. In this respect I fully agree with the considerations expressed in your message.
Mr. President, in your message you suggest that our representatives meet in New York or in Geneva for a brief preliminary consideration of some of the problems you touched upon. We have no objections to such a meeting of our representatives. The Soviet government for that purpose appointed N. T. Fedorenko, the U.S.S.R. permanent representative to the United Nations, and S. K. Tsarapkin, the U.S.S.R. representative to the eighteen nation disarmament committee, who could meet with your representative, Mr. William C. Foster, in New York on January 7-10. We proceed here from the assumption that meetings of our representatives should lead already in the very near future to agreement on questions still unsettled, so that upon the re-opening of the eighteen nation committee session, our representatives could inform it that the road to the conclusion of an agreement banning all nuclear weapons tests is open.
Sincerely, N. Khrushchov.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 22, 1963