1962-12-07

[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the deadlock that now exists in respect of the international treaty for Columbia river development.
Mr. Speaker:: I have before me a motion by the Leader of the Opposition for the adjournment of the house under standing order 26. One has to consider in these matters whether they are of urgent national importance and also the question of urgency of debate at this particular time. It is on that particular point that I have some doubts, and I am quite prepared to hear the Leader of the Opposition in regard to urgency of debate at this particular time.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, you have, of course, very rightly called attention to the consideration of urgency in moving a motion of this kind, a consideration which, as you have already indicated on other occasions, cannot be entirely divorced from the consideration of national importance. I take it there is no division of opinion over the question of the national importance of this matter and the deadlock in respect of this treaty, the consequences of which are of such far reaching significance to our country. Also, Mr. Speaker, bearing on the questions of urgency and importance is the fact that in a series of answers in the house and statements made outside the house in my view, confusion has been created. Moreover the impasse that we find ourselves in with regard to this matter affects both national interests and those of our relations with the United States.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on the immediate question of urgency as related to these developments I have mentioned, the chief negotiator of the treaty on behalf of Canada, the present Minister of Public Works, has already discussed this matter outside the house. In the course of those discussions, and in a letter 27507-3-154J
which he has written to the editor of a magazine entitled Engineering and Contract Record, the Minister of Public Works emphasizes that debate on this matter should be in parliament. In this letter of September 17, 1962 he said, and quite rightly:
I feel that the proper forum for such detailed comment is the prospective hearing in parliament. X am sure that it will he desired to investigate every aspect of the treaty and obtain the views of all persons concerned with it. I should myself appear in such a case . .
We regret, of course, that the Minister of Public Works has decided to leave us, and if he is to participate in a discussion of this important matter that discussion must take place at once while he has an opportunity to do so. If the committee on external affairs, which is the committee to which this matter would be submitted, were set up; if the government could give us the assurance that the committee would be set up immediately so the matter could be referred to it, then of course I would be glad to withdraw this motion so that the discussion could take place at once with the Minister of Public Works, other ministers and other persons concerned present. However, unless there is some assurance that this can be done, then I very respectfully submit this motion to you for consideration. Since the Minister of Public Works will be leaving us so shortly, it is a matter of great urgency to have this matter discussed at once and in his presence.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, if the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition establish anything it is that this is not a definite matter of urgent public importance. In the first place it is not, as described in the motion, a definite matter at all. The Leader of the Opposition talked about a deadlock that he says now exists in respect of an international treaty with regard to the Columbia river development. I have some familiarity with the situation in general in respect of the Columbia river, and I do not know what he is talking about. There is no deadlock.


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: Why discredit yourself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I indicated I would like the discussion to be on the urgency of debate today. While there have been in the proposal by the Leader of the Opposition certain remarks which may have strayed from that

Columbia River Treaty point, I think it would be helpful to the Chair if we stayed on that point. We will continue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are to be stripped down to what he had to say as to the urgency of debate there will not be very much left in his remarks. What has he got? He talked about the subject in general, but negotiations and discussions are proceeding. There has been no finality reached on this at all and discussion has been proceeding for some time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On such motions, Mr. Speaker, my remarks relate to submissions to you and what I am saying is pitched to a level to meet the requirement that you have in mind and not just an appeal to the intelligence or lesser intelligence of some hon. members opposite who are stronger on noise than they are on understanding.
I repeat that when there is talk about a deadlock now existing in respect to this international treaty for the Columbia river development, I say there is no deadlock. There is today what has been going on continually, a series of discussions which are not complete. There is no urgency of debate in this respect today unless there was urgency of debate in respect to it a month ago, two months, three months or six months ago, because we are dealing with a continuing situation in which talks are continuing and plans exist for a continuance of talks at the governmental level. To talk about urgency of debate about this matter at the moment, where no definite matter of urgent public importance is concerned, is simply absurd.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you heard the uproarious and most unintelligent remark of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have not heard any remarks. I trust no remarks were made, or if remarks were made that they will not be recorded, because they are not part of the proceedings of this house. I am only concerned about argument which would support the question of urgency of debate at this moment. The Chair is prepared to hear brief argument in this regard, and I say "brief" because the Chair has already pretty well made up its mind on the representations which have been made on both sides in respect to this matter. I shall hear further argument if hon. members wish to put forward a point briefly as to the necessity of debate this morning.
[Mr. Speaker.)


Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to several questions which I have posed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the house has learned that discussions are about to be resumed with respect to the sale of downstream benefits in the United States; that is respecting the duration, price and so on with regard to that sale. Article VIII of the treaty specifically states that the price and other terms and conditions of this sale are to be determined after ratification of the treaty and not beforehand. It would be most helpful to the house if the government could explain the purpose of the present negotiations and discussions between Canada and the United States; also if article VIII of the treaty is to be binding on both countries.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Coast-Capilano has mentioned me in his remarks I think it should be made clear that on one or probably two occasions last week, or it may have been a few days earlier than that, I explained in answer to questions that there had been two informal meetings at which representatives of the Canadian government, the United States government and the government of British Columbia had been present. I said these were informal meetings and were certainly not for the purpose of negotiating price for downstream benefits, as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano has intimated today. He goes much further than the statement I made, and I also pointed out that there were to be further talks later this month on, I believe, December 19 and 20.
Since we are in the midst of these talks, in which a foreign government is concerned, how can there possibly be any basis for the charge that the Leader of the Opposition makes today, which is that there has been a deadlock? I submit it would be entirely contrary to the rules were the house to go on and spend a day discussing this matter about which there are to be talks in less than two weeks.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Koofenay Easl):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of this matter was spelled out by the Leader of the Opposition. This must be faced. There is, should I say, a violent disagreement with respect to the terms of this agreement between the Minister of Public Works, who was the chief negotiator for the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am concerned about the urgency of debate this morning. I do

not want to go into the nature of the conflict or deadlock or anything of that kind. The precise point is why we should adjourn the business this morning.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, this would appear to be the only opportunity this side of the house is going to be able to avail itself of to discuss this very urgent matter before the Minister of Public Works leaves this house. We have suggested an alternative, that is that this matter be referred to a committee of the house, which could very well be set up at this moment, and not necessarily for the purpose of ratifying the agreement.
When the Prime Minister returned from Washington on January 18, 1961 he was asked whether this matter should go before a committee of the house for discussion prior to final agreement with British Columbia. The Prime Minister implied that this was not necessary, that it could be discussed here. The terms of this agreement can and may be discussed here without necessarily meaning ratification.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: There is violent disagreement throughout the entire country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he must put an end to his remarks when he is asked to do so by the Speaker rising, and should not continue to make his point.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: submit to Your Honour that there is a clear case of urgency for discussing this Columbia river treaty and for discussing it at an early date. It is now almost two years since this treaty was signed. It is regrettable that prior to signing the treaty an agreement had not already been concluded with the province of British Columbia but these negotiations are continuing. It seems to me that the members of this house and the people of Canada generally are entitled to a full scale debate on the treaty and its implications. I suggest it is urgent, first of all because there have been contradictory statements both from ministers of the federal government and the government of British Columbia regarding the type of program that is envisaged, whether it is the High Arrow or the McNaughton plan. This causes a good deal of concern in many parts of British Columbia.


Mr. Churchill:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I suggest, second, that the whole matter of the sale of downstream benefits is something which needs to be discussed.
Columbia River Treaty


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With the greatest respect to the hon. member, I am not concerned about the nature of the problem; I am concerned about the urgency of debate this morning and whether we should adjourn our proceedings. That is the sole, narrow point before us at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am submitting, Mr. Speaker, that a matter which has been in abeyance for almost two years is urgent and should be clarified; that some public discussion should be held so the country and this parliament can understand what is the government's intention and what project the government has in mind. If the government is not prepared to have this discussion this morning, then certainly before we adjourn for the Christmas recess such a debate should be held, or the treaty should be referred to the external affairs committee so that witnesses may be called and many of these matters clarified. I suggest that to have further delay is not in the best interests of the people of Canada generally, and certainly of the people of British Columbia in particular.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver South.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have just one thing to say. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in what he has just now said has given away his case entirely.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I had recognized the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry Mr Speaker.


Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to relate my very short remarks to the matter of urgency only. A number of questions on this matter have been replied to in this house, one of them by the Minister of Public Works on November 30, when he stated:
We have maintained in general the policy which we had and which we felt to be the correct one. Sincere efforts have been made, however, to see whether it is possible to find a meeting ground between the two positions which had thus come into conflict, in order that this great project might be commenced at the earliest possible date. It has been difficult, but those discussions are still going on.
I suggest to you, sir, that this indicates a matter of extreme difficulty and great conflict, and therefore urgency, and we should know what the differences are between the various positions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am quite satisfied that this motion does not meet the requirements of standing order 26. If we refer to citation 100 in Beauchesne we see a number of reasons why this is so.

Columbia River Treaty
First of all, it must be a matter of recent occurrence, of immediate recent occurrence. If there has been a difference of opinion with regard to this particular question, as hon. members have indicated in their remarks, this may have existed for some considerable time. Certainly it existed at a time when this matter could have been raised in this house in weeks past. Certainly it was adverted to in the debate on the speech from the throne, when this formed the subject of remarks by a number of hon. members.
With regard to the other point that the Minister of Public Works allegedly was leaving this house, the Chair is not aware of that event happening next week, or the week after, or when it might happen. Therefore in the estimation of the Chair that does not found a ground for adjourning the business under standing order 26. For these reasons I find the motion unacceptable.

On the orders of the day:


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister tell the house if under the act of 1955, having to do with the development of boundary waters, the provincial government concerned has applied for a licence to construct a dam or a weir in a tributary of the Kootenay river?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: That matter comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Transport, and I would have to refer the question to him.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Then could I direct it to the Minister of Transport. I thought this was a matter which came under the department of northern affairs.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I think the question should be placed on the order paper.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to say that I quoted the wrong statute to the minister. It is the International River Improvements Act to which I had reference. This is the act to which I am referring and which would require the provincial government to obtain a licence before beginning any obstruction.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In the event that the Columbia river treaty ever comes before a committee of the house, will the minister assure the house that he will be

prepared to come back and appear before a committee from his exalted position in British Columbia?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, that would depend entirely upon whether the house or its committee issued an invitation. Whether I am a member of the house or not a member of the house, I would always hold myself as responsive to the wishes of the Canadian House of Commons.


Mr. S. P. Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What do the current conferences and negotiations in respect of the Columbia river basin treaty deal with if they do not deal with article VIII of the treaty?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, these are informal talks on the whole situation without any one of the three governments being committed.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: A supplementary question. Am I to take it that the treaty is now in effect being renegotiated.


Howard Charles Green: No. If the hon. member had understood my answer he would have realized that it was exactly to the opposite effect.


Arthur Laing: May
I address a question to the Minister of Justice. May I ask him the names of the persons at the moment representing the government of Canada in informal three way talks which are taking place concerning the Columbia river treaty?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That information has already been imparted to the house, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Is there any plan under which international air routes now served by T.C.A. and C.P.A. would be amalgamated to form a single company, as reported in the Gazette this morning, and has the government reached a decision in this regard?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of great interest both to the government and to me personally. That is the only comment I have to make at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government come to a decision concerning regional air routes in this country and is it to be expected that it will soon make a statement of policy in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a supplementary question.


Léon Balcer: As is the custom, whenever the government has a statement of policy to make, it does so in this house. I intend to follow this practice.
(Text):



REPORTED U.S. INTENTION TO RESTRICT IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question regarding the proclamation issued by the President of the United States, which amends the mandatory oil import program. I would like to inform the house that the regulations to implement the changes which will flow from the proclamation have not been issued as yet. Until we have discussed with the United States authorities the effects of both the proclamation and the regulations, it is impossible to say just how Canada's position may be affected, if at all. We have been assured that the overland exemption as such remains in effect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question arising out of his reply. Was the Canadian government consulted before this proclamation was issued in Washington under which the regulations are to be issued?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs this question. Is it not a fact that there were consultations with members of his department with regard to this matter?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take that question as notice.
Inquiries of the Ministry



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house whether any negotiations have been successfully concluded for the sale of our tobacco?


George Harris Hees: No, I am unable to say so, Mr. Speaker. My department is working closely with the tobacco industry and making every possible effort to help them sell the tobacco crop, but further than that I cannot say.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government yet sent a trade mission abroad with respect to the sale of tobacco?


George Harris Hees: I answered that question some few days ago.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he aware that the $100 million tobacco industry is idle?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would speak a little more clearly and a little more slowly, perhaps we could understand him, if he would not mind asking the question again.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Verdun.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has just asked the hon. member for Essex South to restate his question, and I think the hon. member should be allowed to do so.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will reword the question so the minister may aim at this problem a little more accurately. Is he aware that the $100 million tobacco industry is idle in Ontario?


George Harris Hees: I am aware of the difficulties that the tobacco industry is experiencing at the present time, and I can assure him that this government, unlike the government formed by the party of which he is a member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister should remember the remarks I have addressed to others, that when the Chair rises on these points of order hon. members should desist from their remarks, which in this case are quite out of order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the light of recent statements by the member for Red Deer, I am wondering whether the minister has received any protests from the minister of trade and industry of the province of British Columbia about the recent shipment of Douglas fir lumber to China?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or, in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary.
When is the Department of Agriculture going to restore the premium on grade A hogs?


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: I am pleased to inform the hon. member that this question is under consideration.
(Text):



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Does he or any other minister intend to bother telling this house of the establishment of a $100 million short term lending fund by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to assist in the development of a secondary market for N.H.A. mortgages, as announced yesterday by the minister to the press?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the statement released to the press was with respect to details of the policy already announced in this house of placing C.M.H.C. mortgages up for sale so as to create an interest in the secondary mortgage market. As a means of further implementing that policy it has been decided that C.M.H.C. should be instructed to assume the position of residuary lender, as authorized by the legislation. It was with respect to that feature of the policy that the press announcement was made yesterday.

On the orders of the day:


Mr, John R. Nicholson (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is a matter of urgency because of the principle involved and the employment affected. I have given the minister notice. Has the minister been advised that United Air Lines propose to close their office in Vancouver? If so, has the air transport board or any other agency of government taken any steps to prevent the lay-off of the Canadian employees affected by the move?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this is an internal managerial decision of United Air Lines Corporation. The government, the air transport board or no other government board has any jurisdiction over this dicision.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister advise the house whether he has in fact declared his intention outside this chamber to resign from the ministry in the near future?
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public
Works): No, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is prompted because of my concern as a result of qualified newspaper reports to the effect that the United States government is working behind the scenes to force the Canadian delegation to accept nuclear weapons at the coming NATO conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member realizes that by prefacing his question as he does in this fashion, he puts his possible question in grave jeopardy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I was merely expressing my concern before asking the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My question is this. In view of the minister's intention to attend the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ministerial conference in Paris next week, will the minister inform the house whether he expects a decision will be made with respect to the acquisition of nuclear weapons for Canadians or by Canadians?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect that any decision of that kind will be made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Canada is participating in certain preliminary conversations which are taking place before the meeting of the NATO council and which, according to reports, will deal among other things with the question of a NATO nuclear force.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I have seen no suggestion about a preliminary conference dealing with the question of a NATO nuclear force. There may be a preliminary meeting of the foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and West Germany with regard to Berlin. However, any consideration of a NATO nuclear force would arise in the NATO meeting.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to that directed by the hon. member for Kootenay West to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the minister is planning to attend the NATO meeting next week, can we have his assurance that Canada will resist any efforts to make NATO a nuclear power?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer a question of that kind on orders of the day.



REQUEST TO STOCKPILE SUPPLIES FOR CANADIAN FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the Canadian government been requested to stockpile in Europe heavy equipment and supplies for our NATO reserve forces and, if so, has the government taken any decision in this regard?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any request in that regard.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are certainly not up to date.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CENTENNIAL



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. By way of explanation I should say that in October I asked the Prime Minister whether action was being taken to appoint a commissioner to get the centennial organization moving. In November he replied that action was expected shortly. My December question is this. Will the Prime Minister shortly be good enough to culminate action before 1963?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recall that a day or two ago the Prime Minister replied to a question of a similar nature regarding this appointment.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question. Because of the misgivings as to the success of the current disarmament discussions in Geneva expressed by the minister yesterday in Toronto, and as reported over the C.B.C. last night, will the minister give the house the reasons for the view that he now takes with regard to the present discussions in Geneva?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, during the course of a very interesting speech yesterday to the Empire club in Toronto I pointed out that-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Interesting to whom?


Howard Charles Green: -progress in the eighteen
nation disarmament committee meeting in Geneva had not been as great as I expected. That is as far as I went. I did not say that the negotiations were hopeless.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. From what the minister has said now and from what he said yesterday would I be right in concluding that the minister was preparing the Canadian public for an announcement by the government of a decision to acquire nuclear weapons?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not as devious as is the hon. member for Essex East.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In
2426	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry view of his statement yesterday to the combined meeting of the Empire and Canadian clubs in Toronto that the Canadian resolution at the United Nations against Soviet imperialism was mainly motivated by the attacks of the Soviet union on the United Kingdom, can the minister tell us whether and how soon he will instruct the Canadian delegation at the United Nations, out of genuine sympathy for the subjugated countries of central Europe, to bring forward a resolution demanding stronger action toward the liberation of the Soviet dominated countries of central Europe?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I rather feel that the hon. member was expressing a point of view leading to some form of controversy with the minister in this regard.


Stanley Haidasz: A supplementary question-


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out in my speech that that was one of the motives for bringing up the question, but I think the speech which was made for Canada on the question of Soviet imperialism last week or the week before speaks for itself and shows very clearly that this government is extremely concerned about the interests of these nations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was quite satisfied that the nature of the question was going to bring forth an argument, and that has definitely been borne out. I must say, with due respect to the minister, that there was no question of privilege here. He was doing some arguing.


Stanley Haidasz: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Make sure it is privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. May I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has stated that he wishes to speak on a question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry.


Stanley Haidasz: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to comment on his answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I indicated that the minister was out of order in the argument he was advancing in his reply under the guise of privilege, which I did not recognize.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime


Minister's statement yesterday announcing a recess of the House of Commons from the 20th of this month until January 21, is the Prime Minister in a position to advise the house whether consideration has been given or any decision has been made relative to the care of the sessional staff of the House of Commons, having regard to their position as breadwinners and in particular that of single persons, in their service to the House of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say that this is a matter for decision by the commissioners of internal economy of the house. A decision in this regard will be forthcoming very shortly.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Does the minister know that some C.N.R. employees on the train from Montreal to Chicoutimi speak English only even though that area is 98 per cent French speaking?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to remind the hon. member that no question can be asked on the orders of the day concerning the language spoken by railway and airline employees.
(Text):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the expected influx of visiters to the island of Montreal for the world's fair, has the government in its long range plans contemplated the removal of tolls on the Champlain bridge?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, if and when a decision is taken in this matter it will be announced.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azelius Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is it the intention of the

government to have Christmas and New Year's mail delivered by inexperienced workers while regular mailmen are doing indoor work?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think I know what the hon. member is getting at, but it is too broad a question to answer in a few minutes. As he knows, every year the post offices take on large numbers of persons to assist in the delivery of the mail. How this is managed is largely the responsibility of the postmaster in each centre.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question. May I ask the Postmaster General if she will consider the advisability of having these inexperienced persons accompanied by regular mailmen so there will be no delays in the delivery of the mail?


Mr. Speaker:: Have someone holding someone's hand.
(Translation):



SECRETARY OF STATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would have liked to do so at the beginning of the sitting, but since the translation comes always a bit late, I waited a few moments.
I want to congratulate and thank the government for having published simultaneously, in French and in English, the Canada Year Book. If one considers that some years the French version was published six months later-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to point out to the hon. member that these publications appear in both languages, according to a custom established many years ago and according to certain regulations. Therefore, there is no need to rise on a question of privilege each time a document is published in both languages. If that matter was brought up every time it happens, members would be rising all day long on questions of privilege.


Bernard Dumont: On a point of order. It is just that delays of six months have occurred in the past and that, this time, justice prevailed.
(Text):


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Haidasz: May I ask
a question of the Secretary of State for
Establishment of Committee on Drugs External Affairs. In view of his recent talks in Ottawa with the deputy minister for foreign affairs of Poland, I should like to ask the minister what stand he has taken on behalf of the Canadian government on the issues discussed during these conversations?


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a new breed of question on orders of the day. My suggestion is that it is completely out of order.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Picltersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State if the Queen's printer has completed the printing and binding of the Gill report, and if he has not yet done so will the minister find out and let us know on Monday when it will be ready?


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: I understand that the printing is completed but we are held up on the binding. I will check.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Secretary of State if there is any objection, so far as he can see, to giving the Minister of Labour a copy of the report in English so there will be a minimum of delay in the government developing a policy regarding a matter that it promised the country three years ago? May I ask the Secretary of State, because thousands of people are very concerned-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No reply from an arrogant government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Talk from an arrogant member.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is aware of the chit chat that is going on across the floor at this time, and I would suggest that the chit chat could be exchanged outside of the house.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. J. W. Monfeifh (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved:: That a special committee be appointed to consider and report upon (a) the law and practices relating to the control of the introduction, marketing and use of drugs: and (b) the dangers arising from contamination of food by the use of chemicals to kill weeds, insects and other pests;
2428	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Committee on Drugs
That the committee consist of 15 members to he designated by the house;
That the committee be empowered to send for persons and papers and to report from time to time;
That the committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; and
That standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that on November 30 I indicated the government's intention to recommend the establishment of a special committee to consider and report upon certain aspects of the food and drug responsibilities of my department. In consequence a government notice of motion appeared on Votes and Proceedings of Friday, November 30, and was transferred to government orders on December 3. This resolution is set out on today's order paper, Mr. Speaker.
I do not believe I need to read it into the record at this stage. I do not believe I need to dwell on the reasons for this motion which will, I am sure, be supported by all hon. members. Events over the past year, and indeed in recent months almost on a daily basis, have clearly indicated the uncertainties which we are facing in the drug field. While the matter of the contamination of food by the use of chemicals designed to kill weeds, insects and other pests has perhaps not yet gained as high a degree of public attention, it does represent a problem which is likely to become more and more prominent in the years ahead.
As the house is aware, our new drug procedures have been under intensive study by a special committee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. The report of its findings, together with recommendations, is nearing completion and should be available for consideration by the proposed parliamentary committee. There is also the matter of Bill No. C-3, which has initiated several fundamental changes in our food and drug legislation. In my opinion these changes represent a very real advance in providing some degree of control over the distribution of drug samples and in strengthening our authority in respect of the introduction and withdrawal of drugs.
However, I also felt that it would be well for hon. members to have an opportunity to consider not only the legislation itself but also the practices and procedures relating to control of the introduction, marketing and use of drugs. In the judgment of the government the most effective way of accomplishing this kind of broad and detailed study would be through the establishment of a special


committee with such a composition and terms of reference as are set out in the motion now before the house.
I know that all hon. members will join with me, Mr. Speaker, in paying tribute to the effective job which has been done within the authority of the Food and Drugs Act. The fact that we are now giving thought to an investigation of the important parts of this structure is in no way a reflection on the record achieved over the years. However, we seem to be moving into a new era, not only of widening opportunity but also of great complexity in the food and drug field. I think we have a public responsibility to take every possible step to ensure that our legislation and procedures are geared, in so far as is humanly possible, to these new and changing circumstances. I might say that while the work of the committee is going on, the food and drug directorate and other research institutions as well as the drug companies themselves are pushing forward with their research on drug testing. Any information we obtain that would be helpful to the medical profession will be passed on to them promptly. Surely, Mr. Speaker, a lesson to be learned from the recent tragedy is that pregnant women should only take drugs on the advice of their physicians.
In presenting this resolution to the house I ask for the support of all hon. members in approving it so the matter may be carried out without further delay.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, on rising to participate in the debate on the resolution proposing the appointment of a special committee to study the drug laws and the dangers of chemical pesticides, may I say that on this side of the house, although we are happy to see the minister finally acquiesce in the pleas of the opposition to refer this whole matter of drugs and pesticides to a special committee, nevertheless we are disappointed that the minister took so long and delayed unnecessarily this decision, which no doubt will prevent patients, drug manufacturers and medical researchers from benefiting earlier from the recommendations which we hope the government will translate into law without further delay for the common good of all in this country.
We regret that the minister fell into the same irresponsible attitude of his cabinet colleagues, the pathological attitude, so characteristic of the present administration, to postpone decisions in important matters. It is quite apparent that this government is paralysed with fear of making important decisions, and most likely for the reason that it fears to face grim reality; afraid that it might make a mistake, as it so often does;

afraid to be criticized; afraid of the tribunal of public scrutiny. In short it is afraid to govern.


Jay Waldo Monteith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, has this anything to do with the resolution before us?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It certainly has.


Stanley Haidasz: When it does try to legislate it brings in half baked, incomplete, and incoherent legislation or proposals with which to patch up existing laws. These are often mere palliatives where radical surgery is most urgently needed, and it is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada have rejected this government and are demanding a change. This resolution is another example of long overdue and incomplete proposals. We are faced in this committee with an assignment of a serious nature, in an area of supreme importance to the health and life of the Canadian people.
It has already been stated, both by the minister and others in this house and in the other place, that Canada's Food and Drugs Act of 1953 is second to none in the world and that it was regarded as a model by the world health organization and many countries which used it as the basis for their own drug and food legislation. I am happy to hear this praise, for it gives credit to the former minister of health, an illustrious member of this house, who has served and continues to serve this house, devoting all his years and all his talents to the common good of all in this country.
Mr. Speaker, in this period of rapidly advancing technological progress in the field of chemistry, the industrialized world is confronted with far reaching changes and progress in foods, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides. In order to keep up with this scientific progress, responsible governments must update their legislation and regulations, thus discharging their responsibility for scientific progress as well as for public safety. That is why we should regularly review vital legislation pertaining to health and life. It is unfortunate that the thalidomide tragedy, producing so many malformed infants and giving their parents untold grief, has forced this and other governments to pay more attention and to initiate a probe into the matter of drugs. I believe that public protection is the overriding motive in considering this probe and new legislation. While government, industry, the medical profession and the consumer have their responsibilities, all of us in this house have the grave responsibility to probe into this matter and enact the best possible legislation for the good of all concerned.
Establishment of Committee on Drugs
Much has been said and written about the thalidomide tragedy in Canada. Many Canadians have been asking why this misfortune happened in Canada but was avoided in the United States of America. Many Canadians are still asking for the complete explanation of why this government waited three months to request the withdrawal of thalidomide from the Canadian market when Germany did so on November 26, 1961, and Canada waited until March 2, 1962. Many Canadians are alarmed at the removal of many drugs from the market which were previously approved as safe and effective by the food and drug directorate. Many Canadians are increasingly succumbing to iatrogenic or drug-induced diseases and drug allergies. Many patients are revolting against the high cost of drugs. Pharmacists and doctors are complaining about the confusion of the multiplicity of drugs, many of which are ineffective and others dangerous. Responsible laymen and doctors are complaining about the deluge of flamboyant and even misleading advertising of drugs on television, radio, press and in mailed literature.
North Americans, Mr. Speaker, have been stunned by the revelations about chemical pesticides written by a scientist and marine biologist, Miss Rachel Carson, in a book entitled "Silent Spring". In this document we find an indictment of the indiscriminate use of new chemicals which are contaminating our food and our whole environment. This should warn us to be careful, and to prod governments to review their legislation to ensure the safety of the public and the survival of nature.
Besides this government's slowness in banning thalidomide, it has introduced both confusion and dismay in medical research centres by prohibiting the further distribution of lysergic acid diethylamide. Many of us have received complaints from researchers in psychiatry and alcoholism protesting the banning of L.S.D. This drug has been found to be very promising for use in "depth" psychotherapy. Apparently there is no evidence of serious danger if the drug is used by competent psychiatrists who employ full security precautions during the period of its effectiveness. These researchers ask that they should be permitted to work with it in their research projects both in psychiatry and alcoholism. Specialists at the Ontario alcoholism research foundation have recently embarked on a research study of L.S.D., believing that it may be a valuable treatment for alcoholics. Dr. F. S. Lawson, director of the Saskatchewan psychiatric services, claims that L.S.D. had given 50 per cent improvement rate in alcoholics when other treatments failed.

Establishment of Committee on Drugs
As yet the government has not decided to give these researchers a clear directive and immediate notice concerning the future availability of L.S.D. The world is filled with so many intensely dangerous chemicals that it seems utterly stupid to ban a few which happen to be suitable for use as drugs. It would be tragically unfair to restrict the availability of L.S.D. now that medical researchers have learned to use it properly. What could be done in this case is for the health department to decide to what research institutions L.S.D. should be made available, and to demand that a record be kept of each occasion on which the drug is used, with accounting of all stocks available for inspection at any time. I hope the government will quickly notify these researchers of its final decision.
There are other aspects of the Food and Drugs Act which neither the amendments nor the preliminary remarks of the minister have explained, aspects and problems which are important and today call for stronger legislation. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization last summer issued a warning against the use of additives in baby foods. Other problems consist of drug nomenclature, the proper testing of drugs for teratogenicity, the licensing of all drug manufacturers and distributors, ethical advertising both to the medical profession and to lay people, and closer scrutiny of food additives, cosmetics and chemical pesticides.
The public and the medical profession have become uneasy and deeply concerned with the abuses that exist today and keep on increasing in the fields of medical advertising, various food additives, potent pesticides, cosmetics and certain drugs. People are easy marks for ineffective medicine, and there is a danger there of self-medication. The Canadian people are also incensed and indignant at the very high cost of drugs today. I believe that part of this high cost is due to the expensive and, alas, flamboyant advertising both to doctors in their journals and to the public. Just the other day the director of the food and drug directorate expressed his fears about the way advertisers are finding ways to evade advertising regulations.
Another grave problem in this field is the multiplicity of drugs available today. The chief pharmacist of St. Joseph's hospital in Hamilton stressed only about three weeks ago at the Ontario hospital association convention the confusion which exists both in the pharmacies and on the floors of hospitals in view of the multiplicity of drugs. I believe, therefore, that a close examination of this matter is urgent.
Mr. Speaker, let me remind the minister at this point that Dr. Helen Taussig of Johns

Hopkins University, who did a thorough study of phocomelia, was greatly impressed with photographs of unborn rats with defects of the extremities produced by the ingestion of thalidomide. That is why she suggested that all new drugs which circulate through the bloodstream should be screened for their effect on the offspring of several species of pregnant animals. There are already several drugs in medical use that are known today to be teratogenic in animals. A few drugs, aminopterin, estrogens, androgens, progestins and thalidomide are known to be teratogenic in man as well as in animals. There is need, therefore, for a program in which all drugs given to a population of pregnant women may be recorded and the offspring followed up for many years. But it would be most prudent, according to leading obstetricians in this country, that medication should not be given to pregnant women without very definite medical indications. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare should instruct the members of the medical profession to follow this wise advice.
All these extensive tests and controls by qualified investigators mean more work and more expense. This means more highly qualified personnel and more adequate laboratories. It is disappointing that in an answer to a question I asked a few years ago it was stated that there are still about 30 positions in the food and drug directorate which have been vacant for many months. There are many problems in the marketing of safe and effective drugs. On October 4, 1962 the 87th congress of the United States of America unanimously passed many amendments to their food and drug act. These amendments were the result of an exhaustive two year study by a special congressional committee, which also probed the relationship of patent laws with regard to high drug prices.
We in this house welcome the opportunity to study this whole problem with the help of expert advice. But we should remember that all the recommendations and all the additional powers that may be granted to the food and drug directorate, much as they should do to prevent a repetition of the thalidomide tragedy, will not absolutely banish the hazards associated with the use of drugs. Should the future show inadequacies in the laws now being passed, let us hope the pattern of progress will not be repeated again through catastrophe.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the specific points of reference of this resolution, let me point out to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that they are completely inadequate. There is no mention, for example, of any scrutiny of the problem of cosmetics yet

this problem has been scrutinized by the special committee of the United States congress and it was proved that a great deal of danger has occurred to women by the use of cosmetic sprays. In the field of marketing we hope to examine the indiscriminate advertising and labelling of drugs, and also exorbitant drug prices, especially as they are affected by existing patent laws in Canada.
I am very grateful to my colleagues on this side of the house for having insisted that the Minister of Justice provide the restrictive trade practices commission with adequate help to finish their report by the end of this year. I hope this report will be studied by the committee which we are debating at the moment. As far as the use of drugs is concerned, I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who I am sure will be present at the sittings of this special committee, will allow us to study not only prescription drugs but also drugs that are sold without prescription over the counter, and especially the whole field of patented drugs. Many of these drugs are used by people in the false hope that they will aid them in their maladies, and we know how much danger there is in delaying diagnosis and proper treatment. I believe that the use of many of these patented drugs sold freely over the counter contributes to this danger.
As far as the number of members on this committee is concerned, let me say that 15 is totally inadequate. I believe there are many hon. members on both sides of this house who would like to participate in the hearings of this committee. In order that they be given that advantage I would propose that the committee be increased by at least five more members.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in joining with all the members in this house who have asked for the setting up of the committee on food and drugs. I will not take too much time, so that the committee can get to work as soon as possible.
However, it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) has taken this opportunity to make a somewhat partisan speech on such an important matter. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the Liberal party has succeeded in getting enacted certain measures of some importance. It would have been rather surprising if they had not, since they were in power during 22 years. It is easy to say that one could do better than another if one had the chance, but it is more difficult to prove it, especially
Establishment of Committee on Drugs when we consider what has been done in the past. In any case, I want to revert to the resolution now before us.


An hon. Member:: It is about time.


Guy Marcoux: I understand it is about time. But an hon. member took 20 minutes to discuss things which do not concern the resolution. Therefore, I can very well take 20 seconds of the time of the house to make my remarks.
I simply wish that it would be possible to name to this committee physicians who are directly concerned with the use of drugs and who want to be appointed to it.
There is always a great difference between practice and theory. It is a known fact that there are, in the various departments, very efficient officials who might not be absolutely up to date with certain applications for the very simple reason that they have not had the chance recently to practice their skill or their profession.
I therefore express the wish that physicians who are members of this house, can also be members of this committee.
As far as the question of increasing to 20 the membership of this committee is concerned, that would be possible. However, the question was discussed in the committee of the whole house. It is here, in the committee of the whole house, that a request was made for the setting up of another committee. Thus, it is useless to set up a special committee if what is wanted is a committee of all the members of the house. We should then revert to the committtee of the whole house. And since the committee of the whole house has asked to form a special committee I fail to see why its membership should be increased, whether by 5, 10 or 15 members.
Again, I join with all those who have welcomed the initiative taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) in setting up such a committee. I hope, as I said a moment ago, that the medical profession, more especially the active medical profession, shall enjoy an adequate representation.
(Text):


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply for the purpose of saying that the members of this group are heartily in support of this resolution and in favour of setting up a special committee to look into the whole subject of drugs, including their introduction, sale and use. This committee, whose establishment we have been urging ever since the house met and, indeed, before
2432	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Committee on Drugs the house met-in fact ever since the tragedies were reported in connection with the use of thalidomide-could well serve a most useful purpose.
I can see no useful purpose in reviewing the thalidomide incident or in charging the department with negligence, oversight or indecisiveness. This was all debated when Bill No. C-3 was before the house, and I can see no advantage in reiterating the arguments which were put forward at that time. I think, however, it is unfortunate that the minister did not introduce this resolution at an early stage so that Bill No. C-3, the amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, could have been referred to the committee. There are many things in that bill which we found in need of clarification and about which we needed further information. We think this could have been procured had the bill been sent to this special committee. Although the bill has now been passed, 1 hope its contents and, indeed, those of the whole Food and Drugs Act will be open for discussion by the committee, and I hope the minister will give some undertaking that if in its wisdom the committee should decide to recommend to the house that there be changes to the Food and Drugs Act, or that some of the proposals contained in Bill C-3 ought to be further amended, legislation will be brought down during the session to give effect to those recommendations.
I have particularly in mind lysergic acid diethylamide or L.S.D., as it is often called. When Bill No. C-3 was before the house I understood the minister to say in committee that this drug would be available for clinical use under supervision, that while it was on schedule H it would not be unobtainable by clinics. I am told, however, that some clinics are experiencing difficulty in procuring it. It may be that the regulations which are to be passed in connection with the Food and Drugs Act will clarify this situation, and if that is so I hope the minister will give us such an assurance in closing the debate. Because I want to point out that the use of L.S.D. in mental hospitals and in the treatment of alcoholics has had some beneficial results. No one can yet claim that the results are definitive, because the use of this drug is still in an experimental stage but undoubtedly there is a good deal of evidence to show that correctly used under the supervision of competent psychiatrists it has had very beneficial results in both these cases. I trust, therefore, that the regulations will permit its use, or at least that this whole question will be discussed by the committee.
As a matter of fact, the whole Food and Drugs Act ought to be referred to this committee so that recommendations regarding
r.Mr. Douglas.l

amendments to it can be brought to the attention of the house. The Food and Drugs Act is a fairly old piece of legislation and the whole field of chemotherapy, the whole field of the production of wonder drugs, as they are called, has changed so radically in the last few years that new techniques for testing drugs, controlling their use and assessing their value are required.
One of the things that concerns me somewhat is that the terms of reference of this committee are fairly limited. The committee is limited in the first instance to an examination of the introduction, marketing and use of drugs. I hope those terms will be considered wide enough to enable the committee to deal with the cost of drugs. If the terms of reference are going to be interpreted on a narrow basis, then certainly, the cost of drugs could not be investigated by this committee. It might be wise to amend the resolution while it is still before the house so there may be no doubt about the committee's authority to look into costs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely the government would not be opposed to that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is nothing in the resolution to indicate that this question would be before the committee and I therefore hope the house will be prepared to amend the resolution so it would also include the investigation of the cost of drugs.
This is becoming an important factor in the expenses of the average family. An investigation was carried out in the United States by a congressional committee under the chairmanship of Senator Kefauver, and the evidence which was brought to light by that committee regarding drug costs shocked the entire nation. In the United States a little book has been published called "It is Cheaper to Die". In it the author, who has been working close to the medical association in the United States as a newspaperman for many years, did a detailed analysis of the sale of drugs. He points out that in many instances there is a markup of 7,000 per cent on drugs, and that the profits made by pharmaceutical houses are exorbitant; that the cost of sending out samples, of paying for patents, and of excessive advertising has raised drug prices to a point at which a severe burden is placed on people in lower income groups who are compelled to purchase these drugs in order to secure the kind of medication they need.
If the minister does not feel that the terms of reference as set out in this resolution will permit the committee to go into the matter

of the cost of drugs, I hope he will be prepared to accept an amendment to widen the terms of reference so there may be no doubt of the committee having full authority.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit me to ask him a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree in the main with what he has said. I am just wondering if we should not assume in this discussion that the phrase in the resolution referring to the power to examine into the use of drugs must be interpreted, in the absence of a denial of this interpretation, to include the very matter which the hon. gentleman is urging the committee be empowered to deal with.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would certainly hope the committee would have that authority. I had hoped the minister would make some statement regarding it. However, on its face it simply says that they have the power to report upon (a) the law and practices relating to the control of the introduction, marketing and use of drugs. While the clause quoted by my hon. friend may give that authority, it seems to me that the terms of reference are contained in clauses (a) and (b). It seems to me doubtful that an investigation into the cost of drugs would be warranted under those two clauses. If it is not the opinion of the minister that the terms as set out would permit an investigation into cost, I hope he will be prepared to accept an amendment in order to clarify that matter beyond any doubt.
The second part of the terms of reference, clause (b), provides that the committee may report on the dangers arising from contamination of food by the use of chemicals to kill weeds, insects and other pests. I commend the minister for adding this clause. One of the anomalies of the battle which man wages against disease is the fact that while we are constantly finding cures and are successful in defeating the ills to to which man is subject, at the same time new menaces constantly come upon the horizon. One of them

and this has nothing to do with this debate-is the question of radiation fall-out, the danger of strontium 90 and the many other by-products of nuclear fission. This is something which we in this modern age must think about because of its harmful effects upon human beings, both those now living and those yet unborn. However, there are many other dangers. There are dangers from the pesticides and insecticides which are now widely used on this continent.
A short time ago a prominent United States scientist made a survey of the millions of tons
Establishment of Committee on Drugs of insecticides and pesticides used on this continent, which are washed into the soil and carried into the streams and rivers to find their way into the drinking water used by the people in the cities. As well as that, of course, they find their way into the vegetation and the meat supplies which constitute the food of the people of this continent. Hence a whole new menace has arisen by this widespread use of chemicals. I think we can look forward to an increased use of chemical weed sprays and the use of pesticides by farmers, fruit growers and forestry management personnel. I congratulate the minister on having included this item, as I think it is a very useful study which has been altogether too long delayed.
I should like to say on behalf of our group that we shall support the setting up of this committee. We shall be glad to be represented on the committee. If this committee is given a chance with fairly broad terms of reference I am convinced that it can render a real service to the people of Canada and can help to find some answer to what is a very perplexing problem, namely how we can control the use and manufacture of drugs; how we can see to it that they are as safe as human ingenuity can devise; and, I hope above all, how we can see to it that they are available at a price which the average citizen can afford to pay.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with one aspect of the resolution before the house. The hon. member for Park-dale, in the comprehensive speech he made on behalf of the Liberal opposition, has covered the points we would wish to emphasize at this time. I had assumed that there is no doubt about the power of the committee to examine into the cost of drugs. It may be desirable to indicate that, under my interpretation, the resolution as it is now drafted empowers the committee to examine into the cost of drugs. The operational part of the resolution before the house provides as follows:
That a special committtee be appointed to consider and report upon (a) the law and practices relating to the control of the introduction, marketing and use of drugs;
I would interpret the phrase "use of drugs" in the resolution to be broad enough to permit the committee, without coming back to this house to seek an extension of its terms of reference, to be able to examine forthwith the important economic aspects involved in the cost of drugs. The minister has not indicated his view. He certainly did not indicate, when the hon. member who has just taken his seat was speaking, what his view was with regard to this matter. If he were to indicate

Establishment of Committee on Drugs by way of interjection that there is no doubt about how the government interprets this resolution-of course that would not necessarily finalize the matter-it would not be necessary to proceed with an amendment at this time. Will the minister indicate, by interjection or otherwise, whether he agrees with the interpretation I am now making and with the interpretation which the hon. gentleman who has just spoken hoped would be given to the resolution? Since the minister does not indicate any modicum of mobility at the moment one way or another-and I may say that is not an altogether uncharacteristic pose on some occasions-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I thank the hon. member very much.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Cochrane, that the resolution be amended in the following manner:
That after the word "use" in the second line of the resolution there be added the words "and cost of drugs".


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any question as to the nature of the amendment and whether or not it is in order?


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I submit with deference that I think the hon. member for Essex East, by the nature of his comments before moving the amendment and the nature of the amendment itself, has ruled himself out of order. He posed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He said he would like to have the minister comment on whether the subject matters which can be discussed within the ambit of this resolution include the right to deal with certain economic aspects of the sale, manufacture and use of drugs. Having received no answer from the minister he then said, as I take it, that he was assuming that the resolution did not include this and was going to move what in his opinion was an adequate amendment to bring in this additional subject matter. Having done so, he has introduced a subject matter which, according to his own interpretation, is foreign to the resolution and consequently not relevant to the subject matter of the original resolution.
When you take a look at the resolution as originally proposed you will see that under the ejusdem generis rule, having in mind that this is a motion moved by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and alleged by the opposition to be consequent upon their request for the establishment of such a committee made during the course of consideration of amendments to
(Mr. Martin (Essex East).]
the Food and Drugs Act, the resolution is related to the various aspects of the Food and Drugs Act, which have nothing at all to do with the economic aspects involving the sale, manufacturing and marketing of drugs. The words "control of the introduction, marketing and use of drugs" are to be considered within the meaning, interpretation and operation of the Food and Drugs Act. This is an attempt to introduce into the resolution something completely alien to its concept, and I submit with deference that the amendment is completely out of order and should be so ruled.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may say a word, the parliamentary secretary has based his whole argument as to the relevancy of this amendment on the ground that the terms of reference really are that the committee should discuss the Food and Drugs Act. It seems to me if that were the import of the resolution that is what the resolution would have said, that all that is being referred to the committee is a study of the Food and Drugs Act.
I submit to Your Honour that the resolution says no such thing. It says two things; first, that the committee shall have power to look into the law and the practices-not just the law-relating to the control of the introduction, marketing and use of drugs; and second, that it shall have the power to look into the dangers-not the law arising from contamination of food by the use of chemicals to kill weeds, insects and other pests. Therefore I submit to Your Honour that the terms of reference of this special committee are much wider than merely a study of the Food and Drugs Act, and all that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East suggests is that it be clarified that the term "use of drugs" means also the cost of drugs. Personally, if I were on the committee and this came up I would be arguing like the hon. member for Essex East, that the use of drugs certainly includes the cost of drugs.
He is seeking by an amendment to make it clear beyond shadow of doubt that the committee has the authority to look into the cost of drugs. I submit that this investigation is not limited to the study of one act. This is limited to a study of the law and practices with reference to the use of drugs and also with reference to the dangers of contamination from insecticides and pesticides. Therefore it seems to me that to clarify the terms of reference by inserting the word "cost" is perfectly relevant to the spirit of the resolution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the point of order if Your Honour thinks it necessary. If Your Honour takes the view that the amendment

is in order, then there is no need of my joining to support the interpretation given by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Do I take it that Your Honour agrees that the amendment is in order?


Mr. Speaker:: At the moment I think the burden of proof is on the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was hoping that was not the case, but since Your Honour has imposed that burden I will endeavour to discharge it. I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has dealt completely with the objections raised by the hon. member for Peace River. We are not discussing the Food and Drugs Act as such in this resolution. The resolution does not address itself to the amendments of the Food and Drugs Act which were introduced in the house a few weeks ago. It deals with a much wider aspect of the whole problem, a wider aspect introduced by the government itself.
While the government had considered establishing a parliamentary committee to go into the whole question, it did not act on the suggestion made by the opposition parties that the bill be referred to a committee. The government has not restricted itself to the narrow terms of reference which would have been involved, if the bill which was dealt with a few weeks ago had been referred to a committee.
The fact is that the government has initiated a wider discussion than that contemplated, into the whole question not only of the use *of drugs but, as the hon. member who has just spoken pointed out, into the law and practices relating to the control of the introduction, marketing and use of drugs. That this amendment is clearly in order will be seen, I believe, in the literal meaning of the word "marketing". We would not have introduced this amendment but for the reluctance of the minister to indicate to the house that the government interpreted the resolution as empowering the committee to examine into such matters as the cost of drugs.
Now, the fact that the government has not given any indication that it desires this interpretation does not mean, of course, that the resolution as presently drawn does not include the right of a committee to go into the question of the cost of drugs; this is clear. I am assuming that this committee, when it does meet, even though there might be no change in the form and wording of the present resolution, will seek, as I think the language of the resolution warrants, to examine into the cost of drugs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not at all worried about the merit of what the hon. member
Establishment of Committee on Drugs is trying to achieve. What I am concerned with is the point of order, his right to make such an amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour is quite right. I was driven into these irrele-vancies because they were introduced by the hon. member for Peace River.
Although not the immediate point before the house, the argument of the hon. gentleman from Peace River was that the amendment which I proposed was foreign to the resolution now before the house. I would ask Your Honour to note that in the resolution the word "marketing" is included. The concise Oxford dictionary, which I have taken from the table, defines the word marketing in this way:
Buy or sell in the market; sell goods in the market.
Well, now, this clearly establishes that the amendment is not in any way foreign to the implications or indeed the actual direction contained in the resolution itself. I submit, for this reason, that this amendment is in order. We should amend the resolution accordingly so as to empower the committee, without any doubt, to examine into the important question of the cost of drugs, as long as there is no violation of the division of powers between the two senior levels of government.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been moved by the hon. member for Essex East and seconded by the hon. member for Cochrane that the motion be amended by inserting after the word "use" in the second line the words "cost of drugs". On the matter of whether this amendment can be received at all I would draw hon. members' attention to Beau-chesne's fourth edition, citation 291, which reads as follows:
When the house is considering a motion, of which notice has been given, for the appointment of a select committee, a member cannot move an amendment that the committee be given wider powers than those which were set down in the notice.
In addition there is this dilemma that the hon. member faces. If in the word "marketing" there is included the question of cost, then the amendment is redundant. On the other hand, if it is not included in "marketing" he is seeking to widen the powers of the committee and this is something the hon. member cannot do. He cannot seek to widen the powers of a committee. As a matter of fact the minister, in presenting this motion, could not put forward an amendment to broaden the powers of the committee without the unanimous consent of the house. If the house gave unanimous consent, then of course that could be done. The powers are very limited.

Establishment of Committee on Drugs
I could give the hon. member many more citations and rulings by Speakers. There is one by Mr. Speaker Macdonald which appears in Journals for April 4, 1951, page 243. He ruled that an amendment cannot be moved giving the committee wider powers than those which were set out in the notice of motion. Then there is another ruling by Mr. Speaker Macdonald on November 2, 1951 as contained in the Journals, page 67. He said:
I might say at this time that if the minister himself proposed an amendment which would widen the terms of the resolution I could not allow it to stand unless it was with the unanimous consent of the house.
There were other rulings in 1952 as published in the Journals at page 240, again by Mr. Speaker Macdonald; in 1959, April 29, appearing in the Journals at page 361, a ruling by Mr. Speaker Michener. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if he would accept the amendment and ask for the unanimous consent of the house?


Mr. Speaker:: There is one difficulty. The hon. member has already spoken, so he cannot rise.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had not finished my speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), having spoken, cannot rise and ask a question. He is entitled to speak only once. Any hon. member may put this question to the minister, but if the minister rises to reply that will conclude the debate. The question may be put to him and he may ultimately answer it, but hon. members are in this dilemma, that if he answers the minister closes the debate.
The hon. member for Essex East had not yet completed his remarks, but had put his amendment and we had dealt with the point of order that was raised at that time. I shall therefore hear the hon. member if he desires to complete his remarks, but not on the point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour is quite right. The point of order has already been disposed of and, I regret, against the view which I think should have prevailed. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has made a valuable suggestion, and while under ordinary circumstances he would not deputize me to speak for him, I think in this particular situation he would. I now put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare the suggestion the hon. member has made. If the minister, when he speaks, will accept the amendment proposed it will receive the unanimous consent of the house. Then we

will have an opportunity to perfect the resolution and remove any doubt as to the committee's powers.
I am not speaking to the point of order, but am continuing my remarks. There is no question now about the need for an amendment because this resolution, as presently drawn, does give us the power-this we must affirm-to examine into the cost of drugs because the word "marketing", as I indicated, according to the Oxford dictionary means buying or selling in the market, selling goods in the market. The committee, therefore, in dealing with this resolution is clearly faced with a resolution which will empower it to examine into the cost of drugs.
We now express the view that we hope the government is not going to put any obstacle in the way of the committee when established, to prevent the committee going into this important aspect of the resolution, namely the cost of drugs. The cost of drugs is a matter which has greatly agitated the Canadian people. While there are some problems involved in such an examination that come within the competence of the provincial governments, there is a wide area which would permit an examination into the cost of drugs by a parliamentary committee of this house, particularly in the light of the report which will shortly be made by the restrictive trade practices commission which enquired into certain areas of the problem.
This committee could serve a very useful purpose. I am sure I express the view of all hon. members when I say we recognize that the food and drug directorate of the department under Dr. Morrell is not the subject matter of inquiry. I can say, having had long experience with Dr. Morrell, that Canada has no finer public servant.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we carry the resolution now? We have had five speeches on it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? The hon. member for Winnipeg North. Was it agreed that the parties would name their speakers, or was there no such agreement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know of no such agreement, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North rose.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The suggestion was made last night, and there was no objection to it, that there would be one speaker from each party. I am in the hands of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact no such suggestion was communicated to me nor, to the best of my knowledge, to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I checked with him about the matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was stated in the house last night.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) would permit me to raise a point of privilege very briefly, which I intended to do as Your Honour left the chair, about the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), and I regret he is not here. I have since confirmed my memory by looking up Hansard, and what the minister said last night was that if there was only one speaker from each party it would not take very much time. There was no indication whatsoever of an agreement, and I would not like the implication left that there was any.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is clearly understood.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that even if there had been an agreement that there would be only one speaker from each group, in so far as the members of this party are concerned the refusal of the minister to permit the committee to discuss what we consider to be one of the most important questions this or any other committee of the house will have to discuss within the next year, namely, the tremendous cost of basic drugs-


Jay Waldo Monteith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have never refused this.


David Orlikow: I would have been more than happy, as I am sure the other hon. members who spoke this morning would have been, to have had the minister get on his feet and give the very clear statement he has now given in one sentence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member would of course appreciate that the hon. minister could not speak, as he would have closed the debate, and the hon. member who now has the floor would not have had his opportunity to speak.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the minister could have nodded his head and we probably would have saved three or four hours of debate in the house before this matter is settled. It seems to me that the resolution moved by the minister is very clear. When you talk
Establishment of Committee on Drugs about marketing of drugs obviously you can only mean the production by drug companies of drugs for sale and the use of drugs which are to be used on prescription.
If the cost of drugs is put at a figure which makes it difficult, and indeed impossible for people of ordinary means, to purchase them on prescription then their use, to say the least, will be restricted.


Mr. Valade:: The same old song.


David Orlikow: The hon. member says it is the old song. I hope that during the next election he goes out to the people in his constituency and tells them that this is not important because I know, and I am sure every other hon. member in the house knows, that there are people in every constituency in the country who have bills for cortisone running at $1 or $2 a day, and people who have bills for tranquilizers running at $1 or $2 a day. I do not know what kind of people are represented by the hon. member who interjected that remark, but I can tell him that in my constituency there are thousands of people who cannot afford those kinds of prices.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will realize we are not going to argue this matter of the cost of drugs. This is a motion for the appointment of a special committee. It is not a motion upon which we will canvass the whole question of drugs and so forth. We must be relevant.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order and with great respect, Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a motion to set up a special committee of the house and outlining the terms of reference of that committee. It is certainly within the rights of the hon. member to discuss the terms of reference, or anything which he thinks should be included in the terms of reference.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Or his understanding of what the terms are.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no direction from the Chair that such could not be done, but not in great detail. There is a matter of relevancy which I think the hon. member will recognize.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was talking about marketing and he was seeking to define a precise term in the resolution itself. It seems to me that we must try to maintain what is the most important thing in this house, and that is freedom of speech.


David Orlikow: This is a question on which I spoke when the original motion came up and it was not my intention to spend more than five or ten minutes discussing it now because, in my opinion, the facts are so clear that

Establishment of Committee on Drugs they do not need to be gone into at any great length. But, if hon. members on this side of the house insist on interrupting I shall certainly have to take the time to go into more detail than would ordinarily be necessary. I wonder if the hon. member who interjected has had occasion or the interest to look at the report prepared by Mr. Henry, the director of investigation and research, Combines Investigation Act. If he looks at it and reads the conclusions he will understand what I mean. I want to read just a couple of paragraphs which I am sure will convince any member of this house who is open to reason that this is a question which not only could be, but must be discussed in the committee when it meets. I quote, Mr. Speaker, from page 257.
The information obtained in this inquiry appears to indicate that, at the manufacturers level, prices of certain drugs are affected by the control over the manufacture, distribution and sale of such drugs exercised through patents. The provisions of the Patent Act relating to compulsory licences appear to have proved ineffectual to combat this situation and the clear intent of the act has been frustrated. This conclusion is not intended to imply any opinion about patents as such, it is intended simply to indicate that, in relation to the sale of drugs in Canada, patents have been and are being used to create monopolistic situations which the Canadian law appears to have been designed to prevent. The control exercised over the manufacture, distribution and sale of certain drugs through patents has virtually eliminated price competition in respect of such drugs and has encouraged other forms of competition which, while possibly bringing other benefits to the public, have resulted in prices being increased rather than decreased.
Further on Mr. Henry says:
Prices of drugs in Canada are among the highest in the world. These prices tend to reflect current prices of the same or comparative drug products in the United States but, because of the sales tax applicable in Canada, prices to consumers in Canada are about 11 per cent higher.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to hon. members that this is a clear indication of the importance of discussing the question. If hon. members are still in doubt, I would suggest that they look at the findings of the Kefauver committee in the United States. Let me quote just a couple of lines from Senator Kefauver's report. Hon. members will find this in report No. 448 at page 50:
Using the average stockholders' equity at the beginning and end of 1959 as the denominator, and the profits for the year as the numerator, the rate of return for the drug industry... was 18.1 per cent. In contrast, the average rate for all manufacturing corporations was 10.5 per cent. In terms of profits as per cent of sales, the drug industry averaged 10.3 per cent whereas all manufacturing corporations averaged 4.8 per cent.
Then Senator Kefauver goes on to point out how on particular drugs, such as one of the most popular tranquilizers, one of the large companies was making over one and
[Mr. Orlikow.l
a half cents profit on every single tablet they sold to the American public in millions, if not billions, every year. When we see this situation it is not at all surprising that in the opinion of members of this group it is of the utmost importance that the problem of drug prices should be gone into thoroughly by the committee. I am sure that whichever of our members are on that committee they will make this one of the first proposals to the committee when it meets.
I would like to say just a few words about some of the other matters which have been dealt, with up to now. I was amazed, I must say, by the speech we heard this morning from the hon. member from Parkdale, Mr. Haidasz, because most of the things of which he accused this government, their indecision, their failure to act, and so on, the difficulties he pointed out, the problems which have arisen in connection with the sale of cosmetics, the irritating chemicals which have been found in cosmetics, the problems he raised in connection with all the other drugs which he mentioned and the problems in connection with pesticides, have been with us for many years, and were problems which were with us even when the former government was in office. I do not say this is an excuse for this government not having acted, but why the hon. member for Parkdale got so excited, I find it difficult to understand. Surely the one thing that has come out of the evidence with regard to the difficulties which have arisen from the drug thalidomide is the fact that the law was not strong enough, not tight enough to give the department the authority to order the discontinuance of the use of the drug. The department had only advisory power; it had to work in cooperation with the drug companies, and so naturally the department was loath, I am sure, to act until it was 100 per cent certain it was correct.
It seems to me that one of the things the committee will have to do will be to make inquiries as to what procedures would be best, so that the department will have the flexibility and yet the right and authority to call for the discontinuance or the suspension of the use of a drug if and when it is found that the drug is harmful.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, and having said on an earlier occasion that I thought the government moved much too slowly in the thalidomide case, from everything I can And out the department is moving much too fast in connection with the banning of the L.S.D. drug. The leader of this group mentioned this morning that a hospital in North Battleford was told that they could not get

their usual supply of L.S.D. This matter was taken up with the minister and it is true that steps have been taken to correct the situation. I think this is the important point, however, which the committee will have to look into, not only because of the importance of L.S.D. but because the procedures go to the whole heart of how we should deal with drugs in this rapidly changing situation, when there are new drugs almost every day. The fact is that as far as I can find out the provision in the bill to prohibit the use of L.S.D. was made without consultation with the people who have been using it. As far as I can find out, the drug has been used in only a very few institutions and under the most rigid control, and yet in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec, the decision to ban the use of the drug was taken without consultation with the people concerned.
In an order for return which was tabled the other day, in the correspondence dealing with this subject there appears a letter dated October 18, 1962, to Dr. J. D. Murphy, chief medical officer of the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare in Ottawa. The letter is from Dr. Hoffer, the director of psychiatric research in the province of Saskatchewan and reads as follows:
Dear Dr. Murphy:
I have just seen a circular sent by Dr. Morrell, dated October 12, 1962, in which thalidomide and lysergic acid diethylamide are placed on the schedule H. Does this mean that L.S.D. will no longer be available for clinical use? As you know, we have now treated perhaps 500 alcoholics in this province, and we would be very annoyed indeed if we could no longer get access to it. Would you please let me know immediately.
That is signed by Dr. Hoffer. The fact that the people in Saskatchewan have now been informed that they can get it is, I think, good; but the fact that they were not consulted in the decision that was made indicates a very serious defect in the whole set-up. I have a letter dated November 11, 1962, from Dr. D. Ewen Cameron of the Allan Memorial Institute. Dr. Cameron is at present the president of the world psychiatric association. The letter is written to me in response to a letter on my part asking about this question. I would like to read into the record, Mr. Speaker, what Dr. Cameron says. Of course, the letter is available to the minister if he would like to see it. It says:
Frankly, many of us have been somewhat concerned over the reaction to the thalidomide tragedy. There has seemed to be a danger that in dealing with this particular matter we may set up such stringent regulations that the progress of medical research may be substantially slowed. It is a matter of common knowledge that when ether and chloroform were first introduced and, indeed, when the early drugs for the control of syphilis
Establishment of Committee on Drugs were produced, deaths occurred which were attributable to the therapeutic agents themselves. This was also true, at least in the early days, of insulin and yet, even in retrospect, would anyone willingly take the position that chloroform and ether should not have been introduced when they were, or that the use of insulin should have been deferred for another 30 years until we had the present, much safer, oral forms of administration?
It seems to me that there is little progress anywhere in human affairs without some price being paid. This is apparent in the progress we have made in transportation by the development of the automobile and yet I think no one anticipates that we will eventually travel to the planets without some men's lives being lost on the way.
In my own field, insulin coma treatment regularly killed a certain percentage of patients every year and so did the malarial treatment of general paresis. Yet so serious were the diseases that no one at any time urged that these should be abandoned until they had, as we do now, still better and safer methods. Indeed, if we stepped back from the matter, we must agree that the whole business of living is a calculated risk.
Turning, however, to the practical issues, I am sorry that L.S.D. has been picked out for special attention. We have used it for many years. It is quite a harmless preparation. It is useful for diagnostic purposes, particularly for the obtaining of information which can subsequently be applied in psychotherapy. Some people have found it of value psychotherapeutically, but our interest and use of it has been, as I say, chiefly diagnostic. However, apart from any particular drug, my great hope is that whatever regulations are set up, they will not be too burdensome and time-consuming, for if they slow down the processes of research we can be quite sure that many, many more will be harassed and crippled or even die, than will be protected.
This letter clearly indicates that we are in a difficult field. There are no easy answers. One cannot say in advance what drugs should be banned and what drugs should be permitted. It is my hope that the committee will call as witnesses not only representatives of the drug industry but representatives of the medical colleges, of the clinics, of the practising physicians and others who can testify as to the experiments they are making and the results they have found. Otherwise, we shall find it impossible to devise practical methods of control. Yet control there must be. I think it would have been much better if the provisions of the bill the government lately brought in had been sent to the committee for consideration along with the other matters. I hope that when this committee meets it will take the widest latitude to call all witnesses who might be in a position to give it expert advice.
I do not want to get into a debate about whether this is a good act now, or whether it was a good act ten years ago, but I might point out that there are thousands of preparations being put on the market every year not only in connection with medicine but with agriculture and forestry. In my opinion proper protection for the people of
2440	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Committee on Drugs Canada will not be provided until the department is not only competently staffed-as it is at present-but until it is of a size to enable it, in co-operation with the medical colleges and the chemistry departments of the universities, to carry out an investigation on the broadest scale of all the drugs which are used by the Canadian people. I wish this committee had been set up on the first day, or in the first week of the session. It could have done a tremendous amount of work by now. If we look at the evidence which the Kefauver committee was able to take before reaching its decision we can realize the tremendous amount of work which this committee will have before it. I hope it will get on with the job as soon as possible.


Mr. W. B. Nesbiii (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There is one question I should like to put to the minister. Perhaps he would clarify the position when he closes the debate. The terms of reference of the committee fall under two headings (a) and (b), and I am wondering whether those substances which are fed or injected into animals for the purpose of tenderizing the meat or making them grow faster could be included in the matters into which this committee has power to inquire. There have been a great many rumors about these substances and I think this is a question which might be considered by the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I want to nibble on this well known parliamentary bone for a few minutes because I am particularly interested in one aspect of this resolution. Like the rest of the members of this party, I support the resolution wholeheartedly and I consider that the work of this committee, if it is given sufficient scope, will be of greater importance to the Canadian people than the setting up of the economic development council.
I trust that when the committee deals with the question of the control, marketing and use of drugs it will call witnesses from the drug industry, the medical professions, from the trade and also from the department. I think the committee should be given ample time in which to make as full an investigation as possible of all aspects of this question. I think the word "marketing" in the terms of reference is an unfortunate one. In my opinion it would have been much better if the resolution has used the word "distribution" because then there would have been no doubt about the cost of drugs being within the field of inquiry. I hope the committee does have full power to obtain evidence as to the cost of drugs because this represents an important question to many Canadians.


I was talking to my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat and he has numerous cases where people for whom certain prescriptions had been written could not take advantage of those prescriptions because they could not afford to buy the drugs. One person in Ottawa some months ago gave me a pathetic illustration of that situation. I hope the committee will call before it representatives of the manufacturers, of the trade and of the retailers in connection with the cost of drugs. I understand that usually the retailers are blamed for the high cost of drugs because they come into direct contact with the consumer. However, their prices are largely determined by the prices charged by the manufacturers.
Then, under (b), the resolution gives the committee power to consider and report on the dangers arising from the contamination of food by the use of chemicals to kill weeds, insects and other pests. I have been interested in this aspect of the question for some years. I am, of course, very interested in agriculture and I see both sides of the question-the point of view of the agriculturist and also the approach of the person concerned with the preservation of human and wildlife. I am not sure whether this resolution covers an investigation of the damage done by these chemicals on the health of wildlife.
Considerable damage has been caused to the health of wildlife in this country as a result of the use of insecticides and pesticides. I am not sure whether I am in order in mentioning that matter, Mr. Speaker, I see you looking at me with some doubt. I therefore shall not go along that route any further except to say that I am one of those who, when it comes to a question of sacrificing certain land that could be drained in order to preserve a duck habitat or landing area, I will save the place for the ducks rather than bring into production the land in question.
Since you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that you do not like me to trespass on the rules I am not going to quote from a document which I have here and which was written by an important person who is very much interested in this problem. However, when it comes to the question of the effect of the dangers arising from contamination of food by the use of chemicals to kill weeds, insects and other pests, I consider the committee has there a very heavy task and one that is not going to be completed in a few weeks.
I suggest that this is a problem of such great urgency and of such great importance that witnesses will have to be called, particularly persons who have conducted research into this type of thing. I should like to see

called before the committee representatives of agriculture organizations; representatives of the trade, that is to say manufacturers and distributors of these products; and representatives of the consumers organizations of Canada. They have been quite interested in this problem for a number of years from a consumers point of view. I think that the Consumers Association of Canada and other similar organizations should have an opportunity to express their views before this committee. Then I should like to see officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare called before the committee in order to get their side of the story and also officials of the Department of Agriculture, particularly the gentlemen who recently, I thought rather hurriedly and rather caustically, criticized the book recently published by Rachel Carson, entitled "Silent Spring". I consider that an examination of this question will require the calling of witnesses from very wide fields.
In connection with this subject I wish to draw to the attention of the house this book, "Silent Spring" written by Rachel Carson. I suggest that any member of this committee and any member of parliament who is interested in the health of the nation and in the health of our wildlife should purchase this book. I purchased it recently and found it to be most informative and most enlightening, and I have followed this subject for many years. In support of my argument with regard to the necessity for full consideration of this aspect of the resolution-and I am rising to speak particularly because of this aspect of the resolution-I wish to quote briefly from this book in order to rouse hon. members' interest in the book itself and in the subject.
At page 15 of this book, commencing with chapter 3 entitled, "Elixirs of Death", the writer states as follows:
For the first time in the history of the world every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death.
What an appalling thought that is, Mr. Speaker.
In the less than two decades of their use, the synthetic pesticides have been so thoroughly distributed throughout the animate and inanimate world that they occur virtually everywhere. They have been recovered from most of the major river systems and even from streams of groundwater flowing unseen through the earth. Residues of these chemicals linger in soil to which they may have been applied a dozen years before. They have entered and lodged in the bodies of fish, birds, reptiles, and domestic and wild animals-
And so on. I can speak from personal experience, Mr. Speaker, of having had cattle die on the range because of eating grass 27507-3-155
Establishment of Committee on Drugs which had been covered by some of these insecticides. This is a very serious problem indeed.
Furthermore, I wish to quote from another chapter of this book, at page 68, which deals with weed killers. This is one of the subjects mentioned in the resolution:
The chemical weed killers are a bright new toy. They work in a spectacular way; they give a giddy sense of power over nature to those who wield them, and as for the long range and less obvious effects-these are easily brushed aside as the baseless imaginings of pessimists. The "agricultural engineers'' speak blithely of "chemical plowing" in a world that is urged to beat its plowshares into spray guns.
Then with respect to insecticides, I quote from page 196:
They succeeded so well that their spurious product responded to the appropriate chemical tests and deceived the government chemists.
They are referring to some investigations in the United States where even the officials of the counterpart of our food and drug division were deceived after long investigation as to the dangers of some of these insecticides and pesticides and their side effects, should I say. I continue:
To give their false ginger the necessary tang they had introduced a chemical known as triorthocresyl phosphate. This chemical, like parathion and its relatives, destroys the protective enzyme cholinesterase.
And so on. Then further:
About two decades later various other organic phosphates came into use as insecticides, as we have seen, and soon cases reminiscent of the ginger paralysis episode began to occur.
This was a case of paralysis being caused in human beings as the result of eating food that had been treated with insecticides and pesticides.
This illustrates the serious nature of this problem. It is very easy to destroy insects en masse and to stamp out disease. However, I am one of those who believe that we are interfering with the balance of nature. These things can be done and can be done quickly. We have not had enough investigation as to the effect of the free use of these products. I refer to these sprays and things of that sort. The same comment applies to the sprays used on fruits, vegetables and farm production that is sold for human consumption. I therefore urge that the committee will naturally follow and attach great importance to the first section of this resolution as it is of prime importance. I urge that they realize the great importance of this problem and the effect of insecticides and pesticides on the health of human beings. I hope the committee in its explorations will also secure some evidence
2442	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Committee on Drugs as to the damage caused to wildlife in Canada. With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I resume my seat.


Mr. Speaker:: I would direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate I should like to point out that I think it is probably up to the committee itself to determine the definition of the word "marketing" in the resolution. The resolution reads in part as follows:
That a special committee be appointed to consider and report upon (a) the law and practices relating to the control of the introduction, marketing and use of drugs.
I would take it that means the control of the introduction, control of marketing and control of the use of drugs. I think the context in the resolution in which the word "marketing" is used relates to the whole process of getting drugs on the market with proper safeguards. I think it must be agreed that the problem which has brought about the proposal to establish this committee relates to drug safety and consequent implications. Let us not be sidetracked. The prime purpose of this committee is to study the quality of drugs and the consequent protection of Canadian citizens.
The report of the restrictive trade practices commission has not come down yet and when it does I believe that will be the time for the committee to decide what it might wish to do in this respect. I do implore the members of this committee not to forget the main purpose of their appointment. I would hope that the committee would get on with the objective, which involves concern for the safety of drugs.
I should like to refer to two or three things which were brought to the attention of the house by certain hon. members who have spoken. The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) made a very considered contribution to this debate. He showed a desire to help to achieve our main objective. I should like to assure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) the L.S.D. is available and its use will be permitted in research and clinical work. This was discussed at length when Bill No. C-3 was before the house. I know that we were quite cognizant of the desire of the house as a whole at that time and consideration has certainly been given to this matter. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), while there may have been some misunderstanding on the part of a certain institution at one stage,


this has been rectified. The drug has actually never been off the market and it has never ceased to be available for these purposes.
I should also like to assure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that Bill No. C-3 can certainly be examined in the committee and suggestions made at that time will be given every consideration. It is perfectly all right as far as I am concerned to discuss the act in the committee.
My prime objective, Mr. Speaker, in having this committee set up is to see if there is anything further that can be done for the protection of Canadians, because in the handling of drugs we want to ensure that Canadian citizens are given every protection possible. That is the prime consideration in the formation of this committee.
The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) inquired about the use of substances fed to or injected into poultry and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) inquired as to the effects of insecticides on wild life. We read under (b), "the dangers arising from contamination of food by the use of chemicals to kill weeds, insects and other pests". It may be that this does not particularly cover the point raised by the hon. member for Oxford, but I think it does cover that raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West. If the committee should see fit to examine into these subjects I would be very happy to have it do so, and I would certainly have no objection if the members of the committee saw fit to inquire into the substances mentioned by the hon. member for Oxford. This would be perfectly in accord with the intent in setting up the committee.
I think it was obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) only entered the debate to try to get the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) off the hook in regard to his references to Dr. Morrell and the food and drug directorate. In his opening remarks the hon. member for Parkdale said something to the effect that he was pleased that the government had acquiesced. Let it not be said that the government acquiesced. In my opening statement when Bill No. C-3 was before the house I mentioned that I would consider a committee at the appropiate time. Again during the discussion of the bill in the house I mentioned several times that I would give proper consideration to the setting up of a committee. Last Friday I said in the house that a committee would be set up, and this was done only after proper consideration had been given to all the factors of the drug situation, which seem to be multiplying. We determined that such a committee would serve a useful purpose. It seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, that

it was obvious that the hon. member tor Parkdale wanted this committee set up for political purposes only and that-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order-


Jay Waldo Monteith: -he wanted to play politics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister will recognize that we cannot impute motives. We must be rather careful about that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If you say it is out of order, that is perfectly all right, but I claim it was no more out of order than the remarks of the hon. member for Parkdale.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is not paying heed to your ruling. He is seeking to do indirectly what he cannot do directly. The hon. gentleman was clearly out of order in imputing motives to the hon. member for Parkdale and he should be told without any equivocation that he has violated your direction.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the minister recognizes what I said and we will carry on from there.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, may I put it this way? In my estimation the remarks of the hon. member for Parkdale were made to incite an argument and certainly-


John Whitney Pickersgill: A debate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not mind an argument in debate, but certainly the tone of his remarks in his opening statement was to the effect that this committee would not be a harmonious committee to the extent that I would wish to see. I wish to see this committee do something for the benefit of Canadian citizens and not be a straight political committee. I had hoped, until the hon. member for Parkdale spoke, that this committee would be above this sort of thing and would make a serious study of this whole question for the benefit of all Canadian citizens. I still hope so, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-94, to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board-Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton)-Mr. Paul in the chair.
27507-3-155J
Atlantic Development Board
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, last night at ten o'clock I was seeking to make some suggestions with regard to matters which I thought the new board might consider. I was talking particularly about the fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador and I was suggesting that one practical matter which the new board could look into was assistance for fishermen who had been away from their jobs for some time and needed to be reestablished, men who had previously been employed at other jobs and wanted to become fishermen, or those fishermen whose gear and property had become run down to a point where it was adversely affecting their incomes. I would hope that financial assistance to fishermen in these basic problems would be considered by the new board.
There are other matters I should like to touch on briefly and I will deal with them in detail when the estimates of various departments are called. There is the matter of bringing unemployment insurance for fishermen who sell their fish fresh, up to the same level as prevails in the case of those who are engaged in the salt fish business. I should like also to mention the need for community stages, adequate bait and salt supplies for the fishermen. I might mention the need for the installation along the Labrador coast of community stages which would include cookhouses and bunkhouses for summer crews. These are just some of the matters in connection with the fisheries which I would hope the new board would look into.
I referred briefly to the need for roads in Labrador and specifically to the building of roads necessary for the development of the forests of Labrador. In that connection, I should like to point out the need for federal roads to resources in the interior of Labrador. As most hon. members are aware developments are taking place in western Labrador today, the magnitude of which has seldom been seen in Canada. One of the great industrial developments of all our history is taking place, and two new towns are growing. All these matters should be examined, and particularly the matter of road building in this vast new empire should be examined.
I should like to refer specifically to Gander airport, where a great new terminal and new townsite have been established. Gander airport represents an investment of millions of dollars by the federal government. I should like the new board to look into the possibility of making use of the unused potential there. Further use of the airport could perhaps be

Atlantic Development Board. made by changing the patterns used by international air carriers. I do not know, specifically, what can be done in this respect but I do believe an attempt should be made towards the greater utilization of this airport. It might be used to a greater extent by the R.C.A.F. and this should be considered. The possibility of establishing secondary industries in the Gander area might also be considered.
In so far as the forest business in Newfoundland is concerned, may I again refer to the need for roads through these forests to aid in the protection of the forests from such pests as the woolly aphis which I mentioned last night. Thus far, I have been mentioning the spending of money but I should like it to be understood that I consider such expenditures, if recommended by the board would be in the nature of an investment rather than merely a handout to carry on under existing conditions. I do believe that the money invested in the fisheries, in the forests and in the development of our natural resources could pay rich dividends to Canada as a Whole. I should like to try to establish this principle.
With the minister's permission, I should like to mention a phrase he used in connection with the Atlantic provinces being a captive market. He hastened to add, if I remember correctly that their position on the eastern seaboard also gave them some advantages in trading. I might mention my own province, and perhaps confine my remarks to my own riding with which I happen to be most familiar. It is true that people of the Atlantic provinces provide a captive market but at the same time the products of our forests, pulp, paper and wood are exported in great quantities; our minerals are exported in large quantities, as are frozen and salted fish. These products represent many millions of dollars and practically all that money comes back to Canada. These products are not consumed in Canada, they are consumed in other countries. The money received for them is funnelled through Newfoundland-I think this applies to all the Atlantic provinces-and is largely spent in central Canada in the manufacturing areas. I make no complaint about this because this is the pattern of trade. We all benefit from trading but by and large, speaking of my own riding the millions of dollars received for the products exported are returned to Canada through Newfoundland.
The point I wish to make is that, that being so, when we ask for assistance to develop our particular part of Canada we are really asking for some of our own back. We would like to get it back in a way which would enable us to earn more to improve and to increase our industrial capacity, so that not only will

we benefit but Canada as a whole will benefit from this investment in the Atlantic provinces, the oldest and still one of the greatest parts of Canada.


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate on a measure which is vitally important to all of those who come from those provinces by the sea and to add to the contribution which has been made by so many hon. members from the Atlantic provinces. I feel it is especially fitting that this resolution to establish an Atlantic development board should be in the name of the Minister of National Revenue, New Brunswick's representative in the government of Canada. As we all know, for eight years during which our province of New Brunswick forged steadily ahead, the minister was the premier of New Brunswick. He is now an able and persistent advocate for the maritimes in the government of Canada.
There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that for the past century maritime development has lagged behind the rest of Canada. Perhaps it is unfortunate we did not unite before confederation into one province and we would then have entered as one unit speaking with one strong voice, instead of the four which have so many times seemed to be speaking at cross purposes. Since we cannot change history, we must make the best of it. I believe that there have been certain beneficial effects of confederation and these can be seen when we look at the condition of our three maritime provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as compared with the position of Newfoundland before 1949.
It seems to me that one of our troubles in the maritimes is that for so long we have stressed maritime weaknesses instead of stressing maritime possibilities. Certainly, we have weaknesses. We have had over the years the problem of the three terrible T's, as we call them, transportation, tariffs and taxes. But we have always had, and we will have, the lumber, fish and minerals and more important, we have the people, the greatest resource of all. In order to evaluate the ability of maritimers we need only look at the leaders in the professions, in industry, in banking and commerce, both in Canada and abroad. In every one of these, maritimers occupy prominent and often front rank positions. What we seem to lack is the necessary enterprise, the spirit of co-operation, the willingness to experiment. Not only have we lacked cooperation between the different provinces but even between different groups in the same province. And, of course, for far too many

years there was little or no co-operation between the provincial and federal governments. This situation has been greatly improved in the last five years.
This resolution calls for the establishment of an Atlantic development board. This is something we promised in the last election campaign. Personally, Mr. Chairman, I am very proud, as I am sure other Conservatives are, to be a member of this house on this occasion as we see this first step being taken to fulfil that promise. In that connection, the composition of the board will be a very pertinent factor, one of the most important factors of all. I would urge upon the government the necessity for searching out the very best men that are available for appointment to this board.
I suggest to the government, and I suggest this as a Conservative member, that we should not just appoint men for political reasons, but let us have skilled men, engineers, economists and industrialists, men like Mr. Michael Wardell and men like Professor William Smith, former president of APEC and now head of the department of economics in the University of New Brunswick.
One might ask what there is to develop. Well there are a great many things and we have heard about them many times in this house. I suppose some hon. members would like us to stop talking about them, but there are so many things we want developed in the maritime provinces, projects such as the causeway, the Corridor road, the Chignecto canal both for transportation as a power complex and the Passamaquoddy power project. We also want further development on the Saint John river for hydro purposes and further development of industries at all levels.
In the past five years we have seen the erection of many public buildings in many of our constituencies in the east, including my own. I would like to agree with the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo when he discussed the principle of small industries in our Atlantic provinces. I would much rather see constructed one manufacturing plant in my constituency that would hire 500 men all the year round than all the public buildings that have been built in York-Sunbury since confederation.
One example of this possibility is the railway town of McAdam, which has been vitally affected by dieselization. It is on the Canadian Pacific main line and perhaps too many members do not know McAdam, as most passengers pass through there at six o'clock in the morning travelling east on the Canadian Pacific. For many years it had a very vital transportation industry, but because of dieselization the town has gone down. It is a town which has ample electric power and
Atlantic Development Board a good water supply, and it also has an excellent labour force. Today it has the necessary buildings available for new industry. What better site could we find for a new industry?
I suggest that the board, when it is established, should do its best to seek out small industries and bring them into towns such as McAdam. I would much rather see a portion of the hundreds of millions of dollars now being spent on unemployment insurance and welfare services being put into the creation of new industries and re-vitalizing of existing ones.
It is true that some measure of social assistance is necessary. There are always people who, through no fault of their own, need our help, but I am concerned with the fact that in this welfare state, into which we have drifted during the last 30 or 35 years, wherein everyone takes in everyone else's washing, that there are far too many people today who would rather collect unemployment insurance than do their share of the washing. Living off social welfare has become a way of life for some Canadians, even unto the second and third generations.
It is too bad that so many politicians do not have the moral courage to face this problem and take the necessary action. I know that in my constituency, as in all the Atlantic provinces, there are many fine citizens who would much rather work than draw unemployment insurance.
For the past ten years businessmen, economists and professional men in the maritimes have been attempting to lift themselves up by the bootstraps through the Atlantic provinces economic council, which is an independent, non-political organization formed some eight years ago with the aim of accelerating the economic development of the Atlantic provinces. APEC has often been mentioned in this house and I feel it has done a magnificent job. We all wish it well in the future.
Two years ago the premiers of the four Atlantic provinces concerned about the problem with which this bill deals today, brought Professor A. K. Cairncross from Great Britain to conduct a thorough survey of the Atlantic economy. I might add that today he is economic advisor to the government of Great Britain. He was invited over by premiers Stanfield, Flemming, Shaw and Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland. In his investigation he brought forward a number of conclusions which I would like to put on the record. He said in effect that (1) in various respects the Atlantic provinces are lagging behind the rest of Canada. The most important form taken by this lag is the absence of

Atlantic Development Board opportunities of employment particularly employment that is regular, full-time, and in well paid occupations. He said (2) the main cause of this lag lies in the rapid decline in employment in the resource-based industries of the region; then (3) this decline, which seems unlikely to be reversed, will give rise to a growing surplus of labour in view of the high natural increase of population in the region, unless migration takes place on a larger scale or new industries are established.
We do not want our people to go away; we want industries established where our people are. Professor Cairncross also said it would be desirable to review the implications of doubling manufacturing employment, that is, employment in non-primary industries, over the next 20 years, in order to establish what contribution this might make to total employment in the area and whether expansion on this scale would be practicable, viewed in relation to the simultaneous growth of new industry in Canada, and what incentives could usefully be offered in order to attract industry to the area.
Point No. 5 was that a review in similar terms might be undertaken for the island of Newfoundland, including Labrador. I am sure the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador would agree to the inclusion of Labrador in this connection.
Professor Cairncross further said that although there are a number of handicaps, arising chiefly from distance from markets, facing manufacturers in the Atlantic provinces, these handicaps would not be fatal to a number of industries in which transport costs are relatively low provided (a) these industries were assured of some initial help towards the cost of establishing new productive units and (b) that they could count on some further assistance for a longer period.
He also said that the most powerful immediate attractions to businesses contemplating production in the Atlantic provinces are likely to be modern factories ready for occupation, offered at less than an economic rent for a limited period of years; and a grant towards the cost of training labour, bringing in skilled workers, moving plant and machinery, and other settling-in expenses.
Then he says there are also many noneconomic factors of almost equal importance in the framing of an initial decision by management-the amenities of the area, its educational facilities, the reputation of its workers, and the sense of purposefulness and aliveness that it is able to communicate. New businesses, especially those coming from elsewhere, will also want to satisfy themselves that their long term prospects in an Atlantic location compare favourably with their
[Mr. MacRae.l

prospects elsewhere. They would be likely to have some advantage in labour costs but this would usually appear insufficient to offset the disadvantage of comparative remoteness from markets.
Therefore they would be likely to require further inducements outlasting the settling-in period, and these could include any of the following: (a) a subsidy to freight costs, especially outward freights; (b) various forms of tax incentive; (c) capital grants or guarantees and (d) a government undertaking to provide a market for part or all of the output of the business.
I may add that the last two are highly effective but are not always practical, and sometimes politics enter into them. The first introduces no new point of principle. It is a logical way of reducing the inconvenience of distance and was fully investigated by the MacPherson commission on transportation.
Point No. 12 is that tax incentives have been used by a number of countries with varying success. In some they have attracted industries from other countries, while in others where the main object was to attract businesses to one region from the rest of a country, their usefulness appears to have been limited. If tax incentives are used in Canada it would be best for the provincial governments to conclude a tax treaty with each applicant satisfying the statutory conditions, and then make reimbursement annually of whatever taxes were agreed upon in the treaty.
The fourteenth point is that it would also be desirable that the federal government should regulate the use of such incentives, if adopted, reimbursing provincial governments for their outlays, provided they complied with the common regulations governing tax concessions. Then he says that whatever is done to attract new industry to the region would be slow in taking effect and should not be postponed or abandoned because of any temporary slowing down of development elsewhere in Canada. I repeat that it should not be postponed or abandoned because of any temporary slowing down of development elsewhere in Canada.
He adds that nothing that is done to promote industrial development in the Atlantic provinces should override the prior need to increase the efficiency and expand the markets of the primary industries of the region. I said this before, Mr. Chairman, that there must be no second-class citizens in Canada, and there must be no second-class areas in Canada. Those of us who come from the Atlantic provinces will never be content to accept such things.
Before I sit down I would like personally to congratulate the hon. members from the

Atlantic provinces who are supporting this measure today and I would ask them to continue to give the minister their full and unqualified support. Finally, in closing, I have mentioned that we should find the very best men we can for this Atlantic development board. That idea is exemplified in the following words in the foreword to "Creative Canadian Capital" published by Canadian Enterprise Development Corporation Limited.
I would like to close with these words:
Seek out creative men with the vision of things to be done. Help breathe life into new ideas and processes and products with money-and with more than money-with sensitive appreciation for creative drive; with support in management and manpower, with loyalty to the idea and to its initiator, the creative man.


Mr. Rideout:: Mr. Chairman, I will not take up too much time but I just want to say a few words on this bill because it affects the Atlantic provinces. First of all I should like to say that the minister who introduced this bill is certainly one of our most outstanding citizens in New Brunswick and has made a great contribution to that province. Nevertheless I do not think he is the proper man to introduce this bill and I regret that the Minister of Finance has not seen fit to take a more active part in this matter, because our problem is not revenue, it is the lack of revenue. We need financial assistance in the Atlantic provinces. We first realized that the government was in financial difficulties when it appointed a Minister of Finance from the Atlantic provinces. We have a very high regard for him. He is the fourth minister of finance since confederation, I believe, to come from the Atlantic provinces.


An hon. Member:: The fourth since the turn of the century.


Sherwood Hayes Rideout: Yes, the fourth since the turn of the century. When we think about the sincerity of the bill and just how far it is going to go to correct the situation we remember that it has been suggested by the minister that we should not look back. But it becomes necessary for us to look back. The government may have tried, but they have not shown good faith with us in the mari-times. I refer most particularly to what has happened in the last few years with regard to railway transportation, for instance, in which I am highly interested. In the Canadian National Railways shops at Moncton over 300 men have been laid off during the past five years. The passenger shop in Moncton has been transferred to Winnipeg. The men employed in the Moncton shop were told to go to Winnipeg or be without a job. That is the type of assistance we have been getting for the Atlantic provinces, and it has created
Atlantic Development Board unemployment in a great many ways. I think the hon. member for York-Sunbury was very realistic in his views, but yesterday when we listened to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg we must have all felt that when we die we do not want to go to heaven but to the maritime provinces because he really painted a wonderful picture. However, I might say that I have a very high regard for his country because my wife happens to come from there.
Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the question of tax rental agreements for a moment; that is, what we receive in the province of New Brunswick and what it has amounted to in the past. I am talking about the good faith which the government assume they have shown. The amount we received was reduced because, I assume, our showing has not been very good in past elections. The result was that we suffered. I know that in my own city of Moncton we were cut back to the amount of $62,000, which amounted to eight cents on our municipal tax rates. This is the sort of concession we have been getting from the provincial government in view of the decisions of the federal government. The bill is probably a step in the right direction, but it does not contain those things in which we are interested in the maritimes.
I was quite amused not too long ago when going through Port Elgin to see a sign on a government wharf saying, "People using this wharf do so at their own risk". I think it was Lincoln who said 100 years ago that you cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. Yet the government now tells us that we are going to be in a semiutopia with this new board. We are told there are going to be all kinds of public works, and at the same time they have cut their program in the Atlantic provinces by many millions of dollars, due to the austerity program. Wharves, all kinds of public buildings and all kinds of employment have been affected because of the austerity program. That is another reason, Mr. Chairman, why I wish the Minister of Finance had taken a part in this debate.
The Atlantic provinces are certainly in need of a gigantic public works program. I have discussed this question with the Minister of Transport with the idea of getting our runways in Moncton lengthened so that we can take on the larger aircraft. I might say that in terms of arrivals and departures we are the eighth largest airport in Canada. However, this has not been done; the program has been cut. All these various avenues which the government could have pursued in order to bring about more employment and better conditions have been ignored. Therefore I say that the government has not
2448	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board shown good faith in this regard. If they had, we might have more faith in a bill of this type.
I feel that $3,000 for the chairman of a board is not going to draw the type of man that my hon. friend from York-Sunbury suggested. Although the maritimer is a dedicated person generally, I cannot see too many of them working on a part time basis for $3,000 a year, however much I would like to see this type of man on the board. But this will not happen, unless perhaps Lord Beaverbrook or another of our outstanding people would like to take on the job.
As I say, the Minister of Finance should have been in on this. The board has no money; there is nothing set up. They have no expenditures. The thing that concerns me very much and about which I hope the minister will say a few words for the record is this. Various delegations have come to Ottawa, as he well knows, and have tried to meet with some of the ministers and others in order to get a few things for the maritime provinces. I am somewhat disturbed that this board will be used as a sort of sifting out affair in so far as this type of approach to Ottawa is concerned. Last week the mayor of Windsor and some other municipal people from as far east as Sydney, came here to deal with these situations. I might say at this point that we did meet with two or three members of the cabinet and were told the brief had been submitted in September but they had not yet read it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit me to ask this question? Is that the meeting at which the hon. member for Essex West, the hon. member for Essex South and I were present?


Sherwood Hayes Rideout: That is right, and I appreciate the hon. member's assistance. We were told at that time that the ministers involved had not read the brief. The Minister of Finance was supposed to chair the meeting but he did not show up, as he has not shown up today or yesterday to take part in this debate. We have found that our problem in the maritimes is perhaps one whereby we should get a little closer to these people in upper Canada, to work more closely with them as we did last week with the mayor of Windsor. If we come as a group and approach the cabinet, I hope we shall not be referred to this board. That is what I am concerned about, and I hope the minister v/ill say a word with regard to this point. It so often happens that one has to see the other committee. If this should be the case, then the board, which of course, has the power to make recommendations will be used as a means of blocking progress.


Again I point out that the government has cut its own public works program. The other day I called to the attention of the house the situation at Scoudouc where men had been laid off in the R.C.A.F. If the government really meant well it would not be cutting down on its own estimates and those of its agencies in the Atlantic provinces. I think the same thing applies to the railway where there have been tremendous cuts. This, too, is an agency of government. I suggest that the government, in setting up this board, should review the situation to which I have drawn attention, bearing in mind such cases as the No. 5 equipment depot in Moncton where the fire department has been abolished. These people came to the city and were looking for employment, and some were hired.
Again let me say I am sorry the Minister of Fisheries could not find time to take part in this debate. I say this because the fishing industry is one of our most important industries. I must say I am critical of those two ministers I have mentioned because this is a matter of such importance to us that they should have been here to take part in the debate. I say this of the Minister of Finance because, certainly, what we need in the Atlantic provinces is money.
I do not intend to prolong this. I want it understood that I shall be pleased to go along with the bill though, frankly, I cannot see too much in it. I hope the minister when he replies will endeavour to explain more precisely to us what this is going to mean -how we are going to be rewarded if we go along with this proposal. Then, again, I am concerned as to whether there is likely to be a conflict between the board whose formation we are now considering and the national board, although I must admit I am not familiar with just what powers the national board is to have. In any case it would appear that one must be subservient to the other.
In closing, if this board is to be the answer to the ills of the maritimes I urge those ministers concerned to take a closer look at the public works program which was cancelled in the Atlantic provinces within the last three or four months, and to examine the cuts made by the various government agencies in the provinces, such as the C.N.R. It is common knowledge that their operating budget was cut by over $3 million in the Atlantic provinces for the coming year. I repeat, you cannot be both for and against the same thing at the same time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not intend to make a speech, because I made one the other day,

but there was one thing which troubled me very much about what the Minister of National Revenue said on December 4 on the resolution stage. I had expected this matter would have been raised by one of the members from Prince Edward Island, but it has not been dealt with and that is why I rise to say a few words on it. The minister was talking about the subjects this board might take up. He said that among these were-
-the Chignecto complex of canal, tidal power and industrial development; the causeway to link New Brunswick with Prince Edward Island, which has been accepted in principle and is in the planning stage.
I had understood from the announcement when it was made, and I think everyone in the old parliament understood it, together I am sure, with everyone in the Atlantic provinces, that this project was not one of those which was still being considered. I refer to the Prince Edward Island causeway. Construction of that causeway was accepted as something which was going to be done. I think the minister should try to reconcile his statements to the effect that this is still in the stage of study, still in the stage of conjecture-


Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-Carlelon):: Would the hon. gentleman mind reading again what I said?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.
There are many policies, measures and projects which have been suggested as deserving urgent consideration by the board. A number of public works projects need immediate research.
Remember that this is just an advisory board. This is not a board to execute anything and therefore it would seem odd that any project would be placed before it about which a decision to act had already been made, or which was supposed to be in the early stages of implementation. Indeed, the Prime Minister in Charlottetown on May 17 told an audience, which the right hon. gentleman claimed consisted of 4,000 people the first time he referred to it-I think he got it up to 6,000 or 7,000 people as he moved across the country, I know this has no relation to this bill but I also know, Mr. Chairman, you must be very proud of that huge gathering the Prime Minister addressed at that time-here is what the Prime Minister told that audience, however large it was:
Since investigations have shown that a causeway is feasible both from an economic and an engineering standpoint, we are proceeding with it.
The Prime Minister went on to say even more than that. He said the project would employ 1,100 men for six years and provide $30 million in wages. It would be eight miles
27507-3-156
Atlantic Development Board in length. It would include one and a quarter miles of locks and bridges. The fill would cost $49 million; locks and bridges $36,500,000 and engineering work $20 million. He even went on to predict that it would be completed in time for the celebration of our centenary in 1967.


Hugh John Flemming: May I
interrupt the hon. member? The part I want him to repeat is what he read about what I said a couple of days ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to do that. The last thing I want to do is to be unfair to the minister or to anyone else. I am merely trying to clear up a serious doubt which has arisen not merely in my mind but in the minds of other people-


Hugh John Flemming: I think we know what is in your mind, but go ahead and read what I said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not pretend to make such large claims as the minister has just made. The minister, we know, is a much more complex personality than I am, myself. If he knows what is in my mind perhaps he would consider standing up and making my speech for me.


Hugh John Flemming: I said "I think I know".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now the minister is being his usual modest self again, and we like him better in those circumstances. The minister said-I think I had better read the two sentences together:
There are many policies, measures and projects which have been suggested as deserving urgent consideration by the board. A number of public works projects need immediate research.
I emphasize that last word, "research".
Among these are the Chignecto complex of canal, tidal power and industrial development; the causeway to link New Brunswick with Prince Edward Island, which has been accepted in principle and is in the planning stage.
"And needs research". I added that from the previous sentence. In other words, this project was placed not No. 1 but No. 2 among the things this board would be doing research into. Yet the Prime Minister told us in April-


Hugh John Flemming: Research and planning.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the planning is not going to be done by this Atlantic development board. Did not the government tell us not long ago that they had spent $800 on it.


An hon. Member:: Or $8,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or $8,000. At any rate it was a long way from the $30 million in wages that were going to be paid. We and the public

Atlantic Development Board were led to believe last April that this Prince Edward Island causeway was being started. I do not wish to misrepresent the government. They did not say that the actual construction was being started but they said this, to quote again the Prime Minister's words in Charlottetown on May 17:
-since investigations have shown-
In other words, research was over then and now it is going to start.
-that a causeway is feasible both from an economic and an engineering standpoint, we are proceeding with it.
Surely this Atlantic development board is not going to build the causeway. The investigations were over last May when the Prime Minister addressed that cheering crowd. Hence I am pnzzled, as are a great many other people. I did not wish to be called to order. I will now disclose the source of the quotation from the Prime Minister's speech. I ov.e it to the Charlottetown Guardian and to their editorial which appeared in yesterday's paper and which expressed disquietude about this very matter, and I think rightly so. However, the minister said this board when it is set up-and it has not even been set up yet-is going to start research into or carry on research. I should not say "start". The minister did not say "start". He says it is going to carry on research into the Prince Edward Island causeway.


Hugh John Flemming: No, that is wrong. I am sure my hon. friend does not Wish to misquote me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I do not wish to misquote the minister.


Hugh John Flemming: Research into the planning to see how it is doing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then what the minister means is this. I do not blame the minister. Nobody will ever forget the way in which the minister was humiliated by the way in which that colleague of his, who is no longer here-I refer to the honourable ex-member for Rosedale, Mr. David Walker-who went down to New Brunswick, without ever telling the minister anything about it and announced that the government had rejected the Chig-necto project. We remember the minister arrived in Saint John, to find that his colleague had cut the ground completely from under his feet. I therefore do not wonder that the Minister of National Revenue, having no confidence in that department from which ministers seem to go more often than they come, wishes to set up a board to find out whether the Department of Public Works is really doing anything about this causeway which the Prime Minister said was being proceeded with last May. .
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
The minister talked the other day about the maze of governmental agencies. You cannot blame the poor people in Prince Edward Island, even the very intelligent people who write the editorials for the Tory newspaper there, you cannot blame them for being confused. If the minister thinks this parliament has to set up a board to find out how the Department of Public Works is getting on with planning this causeway which was stated by the Prime Minister last April, which was going to be employing all these men-


Hugh John Flemming: The hon. member is not making a very good case. It is a very poor case. It is not as good a one as usual.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister seems to be more disturbed by it than usual.


Hugh John Flemming: The hon. member is labouring at it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The plain fact is, of course, that we have already had revealed clearly to us in the house, in response to questions, that there has been a slow-down, if there was ever anything to slow down in the first place. Judging from the amount of money that is being spent, there is nothing really serious being done about the causeway at all, and there has not been anything done about the causeway with the exception of the words uttered by the Prime Minister and supporters of the Prime Minister on this subject in the election campaign. One cannot help but suspect that the causeway is another of the victims of the Glassco-McCutcheon axe which is cutting a great deal deeper, as far as one can discover, in the Atlantic provinces, if one can judge from the way in which public works have been cut, than in any other part of Canada.


Hugh John Flemming: The
hon. member will eat those words within two years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Within two years I suggest that the hon. gentleman will be over here if he is lucky enough to get back into the house at all; and probably within two years, with a real government in power, something will have been done about the matter.


Mr. McGrath:: Does the hon. member think he is going to influence any votes in Prince Edward Island on Monday by the very weak case he is putting up here and taking up the time of the house in doing so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that anything I may be saying here would influence nearly as many votes as would be influenced if the honourable and eloquent member for St. John's East would only go to Prince

Edward Island in order to show them who represents Newfoundland in the present government of Canada, on the periphery of the government-an hon. member who is not considered good enough to go into the cabinet, but who is only there apparently for the purpose of interrupting others when they are attempting to speak constructively about the failure of the government to carry out its own programs.


James Aloysius McGrath: What about the hon. member when he was there last spring?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
St. John's East can speak when I have concluded my speech. No doubt he will make one of those devastating and irrelevant speeches which entertain the house from time to time. However, I wish to get back to the bill, Mr. Chairman, and not to interject notes about who is going to vote where on what day. I never mentioned that subject at all-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -except the influencing of votes last May and June by the Prime Minister, stating that this project was under way, this project that is now going to be the subject of research by a board not yet set up, with the chairman paid the princely salary of $3,000. That is what apparently is going to happen.
I say again, Mr. Chairman, that I do not blame the Minister of National Revenue if he cannot do it in any other way. However, perhaps the Minister of National Revenue could find a more direct route than to set up a board to investigate the Department of Public Works and to find out whether it is carrying on this great public work which the government said was started seven or eight months ago. I suggest that the portfolio of public works is going to be vacant very shortly. The minister has only two, and I suggest that he ask the Prime Minister to make him minister of public works and to let him go at the matter directly and build this causeway that was already being built, according to the Prime Minister, but which is only going to be investigated by a board not yet set up, a board that is being sponsored by the minister. As for myself, I think this matter needs a great deal of explaining. It throws a rather dubious light on this whole proposal. It rather confirms the suspicion that I entertain and expressed on Wednesday, namely that perhaps the main purpose of this board is to be a graveyard.


Hugh John Flemming: That is what the hon. member hopes, maybe.
27507-3-156J
Atlantic Development Board


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know the minister did not really mean that. The minister says that is what I hope. That is not what I hope, and I do not think the minister really believes that is what I hope. The minister believes that I hope this board will be as effective as it is allowed to be in producing things for the government to do, not in studying things which the government has either decided already not to do or has already said it is doing. There is no reason whatever why the Prince Edward Island causeway should engage one minute of the attention of this board. That project was announced as one that was going ahead. It was being done by a department of the government. The time of this board should not be wasted on it at all. If the Department of Public Works is not fit to do it, let us get some new people in the Department of Public Works and get on with the job. We wish this board to produce some new things, not to thresh over the researches of others into projects which are supposedly being built now. It is because this seemed to me to be such a really damning indictment of the proposal, that it seemed to me there was something here the minister ought to clear up and do so right away.
(Translation):


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Chairman, I regret not to say, as several others have said, that I do not have a long speech to deliver before the adoption of this measure. However, in spite of the urgency such a measure may present for the economy of the country, I must, before the adoption of the first section of the bill, express my astonishment that we should always be in the habit of translating the English word "board" by the French word "office". Without being an expert linguist, I wonder whether it would not be a good thing to point out that this word "office" is not the proper term for the French translation of the title of this bill. In fact, if we consider that the word "office" means much more a function or a group of functions than a body-although I know there are several expert linguists in the Department of National Revenue, as well as in the other divisions of the government-I submit it would perhaps be a good thing to substitute for the word "office" the word "conseil".
Now, if we refer to various dictionaries, and among the most important, we note that this word means much more a series of functions than a body. Now, I would not dare believe that the government would like this body to play the role described by the word "office" in Quillet, a well-known dictionary which gives the following definition of the word "office", used in an administrative sense:

Atlantic Development Board The setting up of "offices" is to let certain industrial and commercial establishments escape from the rules of public accounting and to bring them as close as possible to private management procedures.
I do not think it is the aim of the government to have this body escape from the control of the government.
That is my suggestion, and after having consulted its expert linguists, the government may, if it is advisable, propose the appropriate amendment. If it does, I will have contributed a little to a better interpretation of this legislation and especially to its being more adequately titled.
(Text):


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has sponsored my former leader and present colleague for the ministry of public works. May I say to him that I would be only too glad to second the nomination because I think that anyone who lived and worked in New Brunswick between the years 1952 and 1960 will quite understand the qualifications of the Minister of National Revenue for the ministry of public works, and New Brunswick and Canada, in fact, would be well served if it were to occur. This is about as relevant, as the electioneering tactic involving the Prince Edward Island causeway, which has been introduced into this debate by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Obviously a bold, imaginative and extremely expensive project of this sort needs engineering studies. I do not think these engineering studies are inconsistent with economic studies. Obviously when a project like this will link the island with the mainland of Canada there will be features which will have to be studied by the Atlantic development board. New industries will be started in Prince Edward Island and, in fact, there will be an entirely new economic outlook, and I would certainly hope that aspect would be considered by the board when it is set up.
I have listened to the debate in the past few days and I had hoped that it would progress a little more speedily than it has but it does not appear that that is going to be the case. I had also hoped that more members from other parts of the country would participate in the debate. The leader of the New Democratic party and a member from one of the Toronto ridings did participate, and in my opinion this is useful.
The proposal now before us is another phase of a long term attack on the material problems facing the Atlantic provinces, but the attack must be as well an attack on people's attitudes. I think most of those who represent constituencies in eastern Canada understand what I mean. In my view people's

attitudes and people's approaches have to be discussed here. I noted a phrase in a book I read recently by Joseph Kraft entitled "The Grand Design". In it he was talking about the problems facing the underdeveloped countries of the world. He said that what these countries lack seemed to him to be somewhat of a litany of the damned. Sometimes the people of the Atlantic provinces tend to talk of their disabilities in somewhat the same manner. I hope there is not a litany of the damned in the Atlantic provinces and I am optimistic enough to think that this board, in co-operation with the national economic development board, the productivity council, governments, APEC and people of good will, can help to solve our economic problems.
I was very interested in the speech of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough when he recalled again-I think it cannot be recalled too often-the three main problems facing those of us who live in the Atlantic provinces. I think it is well for members of all parties to recall the problems of transportation, the problems of lack of capital development and so on.
I do not see any magic formulae in this board. We live in an age when people expect members of parliament and governments to wave wands and bring about revolutionary solutions to problems. There is no panacea within the words of this legislation that can bring an end to all the problems facing us. Our economic problems will not suddenly disappear because this board is set up. The hon. member for Gloucester referred to the plans of the former Liberal government with respect to a power grid. I think they were reasonable plans but not as good as the plans of the present government, because the grid was to be operated by a federal government power company, the Northern Power Company, as I remember, whereas we have a very capable electric power commission in New Brunswick which is doing a much more intimate job, shall we say, on the site rather than the direction coming from Ottawa. The power grid is working out and I think it is a forerunner of the national power grid referred to in the speech from the throne. I hope that any power grid will take into account the need for the use of coal for thermal power production. In my view this is the helpful thing about the grid. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned Hamilton falls. I agree that it must be developed, but I think it must be developed in tune with the coal aspect of power production.
I feel, too, that the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation will

be helpful to the transportation problem facing the maritimes when they are implemented in statute form. I prefer government policies which will bring a return in human living conditions for the money spent. I think there is too much of this business of handing out large cheques or saying a solution of a problem can be arrived at by merely paying another grant or another subsidy. Subsidies and grants are part of the formula for a solution of our problem. I think some of the solutions have been based too much on the money aspect.
I am optimistic enough to believe that this board will be unorthodox in its acceptance of new proposals which will improve all the resources of this part of Canada, and that Canada will not just be enriched by the migration of people from the Atlantic provinces. I hope that the area itself will be built up to assist the people in that area. I had, too, a thought about the very name of this bill. We have had a sort of evolution of feeling in the Atlantic provinces. I am not going to say who started it or when it started. These jousting matches are so unrealistic that they are not listened to by the people of Canada. I do suggest this, that the founding of the Atlantic provinces economic council in 1952 was a highwater mark. I think the meeting of the premiers-I do not care who the premiers were, although I am proud that the sponsor of this bill was one of the important keystones of that meeting-was an important step. The very fact that APEC started and that the Atlantic premiers got together resulted in the fact that today we have a bill presented to this house containing the words "Atlantic provinces board". It is not the Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia board. I suggest this denotes a change in thinking. It shows that the maritimes and Newfoundland are growing up and, I believe it shows we have come a long way.
Now, a great deal has been made about the capital projects aspect. Perhaps I am naive about these things, but surely the board will study these capital projects and make recommendations to parliament. Then, parliament will vote the money. At least, I presume that is the way the board will operate. In so far as the problem referred to by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough is concerned, the meetings of the board, I think he will find if he consults his legal colleagues that this is the usual device to provide the widest possible scope for meetings. The only provision tying down the meetings is that one meeting a year will be held here in Ottawa. Otherwise, the board can meet twice a week or even daily in accordance with the provisions of that section.
Atlantic Development Board
I have only one other suggestion, Mr. Chairman. During the course of this debate someone mentioned the migration from the maritimes. I think this is true. I like to add to that the fact that because of this migration we in the Atlantic part of Canada have not had the benefit of a transfusion of immigrants. A good many people have left the Atlantic provinces for other parts of Canada and of the world, but we have not shared in that transfusion that has made, if I may be so bold as to say it, Toronto an interesting city and made other parts of Canada much more cosmopolitan than would otherwise have been the case. I feel optimistic about this board because I think this is part of the pattern of the recognition of the special problems of Atlantic Canada by the rest of the country. Obviously, the former government made contributions to this change in attitude. Obviously, too, the present government has set an example of assistance to Atlantic Canada which bodes well for the helpfulness of this board we are considering today.


Mr. Robichaud:: It was not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to speak on this first clause. However, in view of the statement made by the hon. member for Royal that the Minister of National Revenue built New Brunswick when he was in office, I think the record should be kept straight. Statistics will show that when the premier left office in 1960 there were 729 fewer industries in New Brunswick than when he took office in 1952.


Hugh John Flemming: May I
ask the hon. gentleman what his authority is for that statement?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: These figures have been quoted time and time again and have not been denied.


An hon. Member:: By the Liberal thinkers in New Brunswick.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: They have been taken from statistics produced by the province of New Brunswick. The minister stated in his speech on second reading that it was better if a bill of this kind were not tagged with so many dollars. I think this is an expression that will not be too well received in the Atlantic provinces. It was evident, when we saw the bill, that there were very few dollars tagged to this board. The salary of the chairman is limited to $3,000 per year. This shows the kind of consideration this government is giving the Atlantic provinces. In so far as the national development board is concerned, for instance, it is evident from the bill that the chairman will be a permanent employee and will receive a salary fixed by the governor in council. In so far as the Atlantic

Atlantic Development Board provinces are concerned, the government is satisfied a part-time man who may give a week or two weeks of his time to the work called for by this board will be worth about $3,000.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I express the hope that this board will be more effective than a number of the boards and commissions that have been appointed by this government since it took office in 1957. We know from the figures that have been released these boards have cost us in the vicinity of $8 million. We know also that most of the recommendations made by these boards have been ignored by this government. I would refer to the Rand royal commission on coal. The report of that commission has been in the hands of the government for over two years and an interdepartmental committee was appointed to study the recommendations. As yet, nothing has been done in this field. I would refer to the MacPherson commission on transportation, and to the Borden commission on power, which was not even allowed to sit in the Atlantic provinces, and to the commission now studying banking and finance. I hope that when recommendations are made by this board the government will pay attention to them, and that the board will be more effective than what has been done by royal commissions so far.
I would also bring to the attention of the minister a short visit which was made to Ottawa last spring by the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They presented the Prime Minister with a brief, which had been prepared after considerable study by the power authorities and research boards of the two provinces, but even two or three months after that the ministers of the departments concerned did not know about it. The brief was shelved and put away, and I question whether this board would have more effect on the government than the recommendations made by Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia and Premier Robichaud of New Brunswick.
As it appears now, the only recommendations that have been implemented in part are those made by the Gordon commission on economic development, which reported to the government in 1957,-and I say in part only, because the Gordon commission recommended that capital public works projects be instigated at once in order to stimulate the development of the economy of the Atlantic provinces. To date very little has been done in this field.
The last question I wish to raise has to do with the scope of the board. We have a national development board which, according to the Minister of Finance, will cover three million square miles of the country, and it
[Mr. Robichaud.l
must be recognized that the Atlantic provinces are a part of Canada. The Minister of Finance, when he introduced the legislation providing for the establishment of that board, said it would be national in scope and we may now have to face a situation in which recommendations made by the Atlantic development board to the government will be eclipsed by recommendations made by the national development board.
I think it is important that the minister should clearly outline the power of the Atlantic development board, because projects recommended by it may be found by the national development board not to be economically sound. That is an expression which is often used by this government when major projects are being considered for the Atlantic provinces, and we want to know how far the power of this board may extend.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I have been very much interested in the debate this afternoon, and I must confess a great deal more interested in it since we got on to the subject of the Atlantic development board. Many observations have been made which it would appear are deserving of comment and, in some instances, of a reply, and I shall be very pleased to give replies in every instance where I possibly can. However, Mr. Chairman, I would again like to mention the fact, as I did last night, that we are dealing with something which did not exist previously. We are breaking new ground so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned. We have never before had the subject submitted to parliament in legislation providing for the creation of a board that would have special responsibility solely in the Atlantic provinces.
I have no objection to the question put forward by my hon. friend from Gloucester and I shall try to give it some attention in a few minutes because I think it is quite a material question to ask. But, before going into it, I find I am almost forced to pay a little attention to the hon. gentleman for Bonavista-Twillingate who spoke a few minutes ago.
I am one of those who enjoys the speeches of the hon. gentleman for Bonavista-Twillingate. He is a skilful debater; he is a fluent debater, and he is a resourceful debater. If there is the least bit of vulnerability in an opponent's argument he seems to have the faculty of putting his finger on it; but today he laboured and he sweated and he stuttered, and had the hardest time I ever saw him have in trying to make even the semblance of a case. There hardly was any case at all and as I listened to him as he referred to these things-and he did not go back into ancient history as

he usually does-I rather admired his convenient memory because he could forget all the things he wanted to forget. Finally he came along and picked upon the Prince Edward Island causeway and said this bill was really vulnerable on that subject.
He quoted my remarks made a few days ago in which I said that the project was already accepted in principle.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More than in principle.


Hugh John Flemming: Just a minute-was already accepted in principle and was in the planning stage. Then he professed to get terribly indignant and said it should be under construction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say it was under construction; I did not say the government said it was under construction. I said the government said it had decided to go ahead with it and was getting on with the plans. That is what I said.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I still submit that he inferred that it should be under construction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, no.


Hugh John Flemming: Well I have the right, Mr. Chairman, to take any inference that I choose from his remarks. If he disagrees with my inference then it is a debatable subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite, and I will debate it.


Hugh John Flemming: I will take any inference I choose from his remarks. He professed to say something about the delay that was going to jeopardize this great project. Well, Mr. Chairman, a few days ago I attended a chamber of commerce dinner and in the course of conversation with various people prior to the dinner I met a gentleman who said to me, "I am a principal of one of the firms that is doing the survey, the engineering study of the Prince Edward Island causeway." I asked him how it was coming along and he said, "Pretty good. We have sort of definite plans." He also said "It is a tremendous project and it is obvious that it must receive a lot of study."
I think anyone who has ever gone across on the ferry from Cape Tormentine to Borden, a distance of nine miles, must certainly know that a lot of engineering study will have to go into it. It is a terrifically difficult engineering problem, but coming back to what this gentleman told me-


Mr. Stewart:: If I understand the minister correctly he suggests that Northumberland Consultants Limited are going to make
Atlantic Development Board detailed research into the engineering feasibility of this project, and he enlarges on the difficulty of the project. Now I should like to ask him, if that is true, what did the $348,810 spent in 1958-59 achieve?


Hugh John Flemming: Well,
Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that question because I have not got the information with me here.


John B. Stewart: Is the implication that the earlier research was unsuccessful?


Hugh John Flemming: I can
tell the hon. gentleman this: It was $349,000 more than the old Liberal government ever spent on the causeway.


John B. Stewart: Are you saying it achieved nothing?


Hugh John Flemming: And if
it should be $1, Mr. Chairman, that would be $1 more than the Liberal government ever spent on the Prince Edward Island causeway.


John B. Stewart: But you are saying it was wasted.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind being asked questions but I submit that hon. gentlemen over there, who do not seem to be able to take it very well, are interrupting and trying to cause a debate. I have the floor at the moment and they may have it when the opportunity comes in the regular course of debate. But I do not worry about the remarks of the hon. member, unless he is a great deal better than he was yesterday, because I thought he made a very poor speech then.
Mr. Chairman, I am coming back to my conversation with one of the engineers of the project. He said to me, "We have studied and are studying similar projects in different parts of the world. We find that, while it is difficult, it can be done. We believe it is going to be a wonderful engineering feat". That is my answer to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who asked how it was going. The decision to build the causeway was made quite some time ago, almost a year past.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was announced in April.


Hugh John Flemming: The hon. gentleman referred to the announcement as contained in the newspapers as being 100 per cent accurate. You may be sure, Mr. Chairman, and this house may be sure that any commitment made on behalf of this government by the Prime Minister in connection with the Prince Edward Island causeway or any other project will be carried out to the letter. They talk about research. If my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate were

Atlantic Development Board chairman ol this board, one of the first things he would ask-I am satisfied in my own mind, because I have respect for his ability-would be, "How are we getting along with the Prince Edward Island causeway"? That is probably one of the first things this chairman will ask. If an inquiry into the plans which are being made constitutes research, undoubtedly that will be it. And why would it not be done? Why should it not be done? I am sure he would be the first to say that it should be done. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, to take care of that matter I quoted the conversation I had with the engineer and I have quoted the facts. It is probably completely out of order to concentrate on the Prince Edward Island causeway, but certainly there has been plenty of precedent for it this afternoon. However, I just wanted to clean up that particular matter here and now.
My hon. friend from Westmorland had a little something to say about municipal grants and complained a bit about the fact that his city was receiving a smaller amount since the inception of the new agreements than previously. That is what I understood him to say. May I remind him that I cannot answer his question because the matter of dealing with municipalities in any province is one which goes through provincial governments. I can tell him how much more money the province of New Brunswick is receiving in direct aid under this agreement than they were under the old agreement. It is something in the order of $4 million.


Sherwood Hayes Rideout: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question?


Hugh John Flemming: Yes.


Sherwood Hayes Rideout: Would the minister tell us how much we are getting in comparison with other provinces?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to get into a debate on the question. I am just telling the hon. member how much more money New Brunswick is getting under this agreement than they were under the old one. If he, like some other hon. members seem to want, would like to get into a debate on this subject, that will be very welcome as far as I am concerned. But I say to him that they are receiving $4 million more in direct grants under the new agreement than they were under the old, and I submit also that he should be asking how much more his city is going to get from the provincial government due to the fact that they are receiving this much more money. He should be asking why it is-I am given to understand this-that

since 1960 they have not recognized the existing formula of something like 17 per cent of this money from federal sources being distributed to the municipalities. Let him ask the provincial government the reason for that.


Mr. Pugh:: There is a close alliance there.


Hugh John Flemming: Yes,
there should be. He should be getting more, being the mayor of the city.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that the principle the hon. gentleman followed when he was premier?


Hugh John Flemming: I would suggest that if he wants to know anything about the reputation the hon. gentleman enjoyed with the municipalities in New Brunswick, he should go down and ask the municipalities.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I heard the mayor.


Hugh John Flemming: He could ask the hon. member for Westmorland outside this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He will ask you outside the chamber too.


Hugh John Flemming: I want to congratulate my hon. friend from Westmorland on having put his finger on something which I think deserves correcting. I refer to the figure put in the bill for the salary of the chairman. I agree with him, and when we come to clause 5 I propose to move an amendment that will delete the sum of $3,000 and leave the matter of the chairman's salary to the discretion of the governor in council. I agree with him 100 per cent that it is a ridiculous figure and should be changed or eliminated. In this case it will be eliminated and left to the discretion of the governor in council. What you pay a man for services depends upon a variety of things. It depends upon ability, time spent, results achieved, and so on. To pay the chairman the rather small amount you would pay a stenographer-and many of them are paid a good deal more, which I think is very fitting and proper-even though he is part time, is somewhat ridiculous and is going to be changed.
Mr. Chairman, there is one other point with which I should like to deal before I resume my seat. One of our hon. friends in this debate, I think it was the hon. member for York-Sunbury, mentioned the fact that we in the Atlantic provinces for many years had small family businesses. It is a matter of a great deal of regret to me that they seem

to be disappearing. Whether that is due to the age in which we live I leave to hon. members to decide for themselves. I am afraid that is one of the contributing factors. We go to Nova Scotia and pick up Stanfield's underwear, and secure Moirs chocolates at Halifax, and then we go over to Sackville for Enterprise ranges, to Enamel Foundry for heating, and so on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Don't forget Black Harbour.


Hugh John Flemming: Yes,
and Black Harbour. There is a tremendous industry based on a family. I might say to my hon. friend that the gentlemen who operate that business are reasonably good friends of mine. I am pleased to be able to say that. They may be a little on the wrong side politically, but we are broadminded in that part of the country.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The sardines are good.


Hugh John Flemming: Yes, the sardines are all right too. But I think the age-old family business-this may be something we all very much regret-is disappearing, as is the development of the family business based on the desire of someone to create something. I submit those family businesses were based upon the urge that someone had to do something, to make a product. As a consequence, they did not ask how many people were going to go by the door and they did not have any surveys made; they just had the urge to do something and they put that urge into operation. Undoubtedly it exists all over Canada to a great extent, and has existed. The fact that it seems to be disappearing is something we all regret.
Hon. members may say, "What has this to do with the Atlantic development board?" I think it has this to do with it. Here is a board which will be considered by all the citizens of the Atlantic provinces as being, in a sense, their board.
Now I am coming to the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester. He asked whether there would not be a conflict between the national board and this board. I think the answer is in the negative. I have no reason to think it would not be in the negative. I think that the national board, if it had a reference or study to be made in the Atlantic provinces, would refer it to this board. I think it would not be difficult for them to decide, when any matters pertaining to the Atlantic provinces arose, to refer them to the Atlantic provinces board which would then undertake the duties of investigation and study, the consideration of markets and
Atlantic Development Board all those things which go to the determination of whether or not there should be established in the Atlantic provinces an industry based on certain assumptions of raw material and available markets. That is my own feeling about what they might do.
That would apply also to the development of the fisheries industry which was dealt with so ably in a well-thought out address by the hon. member from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador this afternoon who, incidentally, made a moving appeal for the re-establishment of fishermen who happen to be separated from their usual means of earning a living.
Power development in Labrador is a large subject. I have heard the premier of Newfoundland speak on that. He could come here and talk for a couple of hours on it and never miss a beat. The development of the St. John river, the joining together of Hamilton falls power in a national grid-all those things come into it. That is private enterprise. I do not think it is fair to interfere with private enterprise; I think the work of this board should be complementary to it. There are many businesses which are not able to take part in research to any great extent, possibly for financial reasons. But here is a board which they may consult; here is something they may think of as belonging to them and something with which they can get in touch fairly easily. When they come to Ottawa they will not run around as much as the hon. gentleman used to tell me to do-I admit he did not, but he could have done. They would know where to go to get attention and service.
The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador also said that this should be a matter of investment rather than handouts. I could not agree more with that observation. The progress which has been made by the Atlantic provinces economic council is outstanding and I hope there will be a very close connection between that council and this board. I find myself unable to go further than that for reasons which, I know, everyone will understand. I hope there will be this close connection, because the council has a lot of research information and the main thing now is to go ahead and do the things that need to be done in order to make progress.
I said the other day that I felt the Atlantic economic development board had great possibilities. I repeat that. This is the most forward step which has been taken in my lifetime by the federal authority. This is a recognition of the special circumstances existing in the Atlantic provinces. I hope all of us will be prepared to pass the bill. If we were to find some weaknesses in it in the course of

Atlantic Development Board its operation in the coming year, then we could come back and ask for amendments to strengthen it. At this time I feel it is in the nature of an experiment. We shall have to go ahead and get our experience. Having got our experience we would seek to improve. Then we would go back and we really would improve. I feel that at this stage we might proceed to go through the bill. I appeal to hon. members not to consider that this measure will be perfect from the outset. There are very few perfect people in the world and, probably, very few perfect bills. But let us go ahead with this one to see how it works and then we will try to improve it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have two brief observations to make about the remarks we have just heard. I must say I find it a lot easier to debate with the hon. gentleman of the same name spelled with only one "m" than I do with the hon. gentleman from New Brunswick who seems, in doubling the letter, to have doubled the milk of human kindness.
However, I cannot let pass the observation the minister made about the causeway, in an attempt to get out of the awkward situation in which he found himself, without drawing attention to some figures which were put on the record in Hansard by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works on October 31. These showed that in 1957-58 there was $10,338 spent on this project and as no new estimates by the present government were presented in that year, the minister is wrong in saying that nothing was done about the study of this matter by the previous government, though I admit it was only just begun. In 1958-59, $349,000 was spent; in 1959-60, $155,000; in 1960-61, $8,900, and in 1961-62 the amount spent was $9,820. But the real shocker was that between April 1, 1962 and September 30, 1962 the expenditure on studies and surveys was $828.75. That was after the project was started, and by "started" I do not mean, as the minister incorrectly said I did, that construction was started. The Prime Minister came into this house a few days before dissolution and said the government had decided to build this causeway. He did say, of course, and he said in Charlottetown, too, that it was still in the planning stage. But the decision had been made to build it, not to engage in research as to its advisability. However, I think that figure of $828 is more eloquent than any words I can use.
I think that when the minister was talking about family businesses he said something which would find an echo in many hearts in this house and, inadvertently, gave us the best reason yet for the establishment of this board. He said it was to be a protective

measure against the national economic development board, which we understand, is to be under the direction of the Minister without Portfolio who is not exactly a fairy godmother of family businesses. He perhaps has done more than any man in this country to see that family businesses were gobbled up by the economic octopus. If the Atlantic board is to be a kind of shield and buckler against that type of concentration in the central provinces of which the Minister without Portfolio, the real head of the government today, is the epitome, I only hope the minister has a good strong arm to hold up that shield.


Mr. McCleave:: In the few moments which remain before five o'clock perhaps I could refer to one of the observations just made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate. Surely he knows, from his experience in government, that bills have a habit of accumulating over a period of time. Then they are presented and paid. The figures he quoted this afternoon are quite irrelevant to what is going to take place. They are no true reflection by a long shot of what is going to take place in the development of the Prince Edward Island causeway this year, and next year and a good number of years to come. We are the people who are going to put that causeway through. I personally will be glad to drive the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate across there. I will still be in a position to do it at that point.


James Aloysius McGrath: If in fact he is in the house.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Whether he is in the house or not.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Not for $105 million; never.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Gordon Campbell Chown: In order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, the first item being public bills.



MERCHANT SEAMEN COMPENSATION ACT


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-25, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is the same as the one which was introduced last session and which was debated on March 23 last. I do not intend to repeat the argument I made on that occasion as the debate of last session is recorded at page 2145 of Hansard and is available to all hon. members. However, I should like to take a few minutes in order to reply briefly to some of the arguments made by hon. members who took part in this debate and also to clear up what appears to be some misunderstanding about the bill.
When I introduced this bill last session I referred to it as a very simple one as, in fact, it really is. Some hon. members took issue with that statement. However, I should like to refer in particular to the observations made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris) who at that time was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I single out this argument as it is typical of all the arguments that were made in that debate and it illustrates the misunderstanding on which those arguments were based. I am reading from page 2146 of Hansard of March 23, 1962, beginning at the second column. The then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce is speaking and this is what he said:
Mr. Speaker, what would the amendment before us seek to do? The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) would seek to amend section 30(2) of the present legislation in order to empower the merchant seamen compensation board to name as foster mother someone who would take care of a child or children of a deceased seaman in another home, not the existing household of the deceased seaman or of the deceased seaman's family. This amendment would have the effect of entitling the foster mother to the widow's pension of $75 a month as long as she was caring for the children up to the age of 18 years, or in the case of an invalid child, beyond that age. That would be the situation if the seaman died leaving no widow.
That quotation contains the main argument that was brought forward against adopting this legislation. It was contended that the purpose of the original bill was to keep the family together and that the amendment which I was introducing then, and am introducing again today, would break the family up or divide the family and therefore prevent the main object of the legislation from being implemented.
In this connection I wish to point out first and foremost that this bill does nothing of the kind. It does not compel the merchant seamen compensation board to do anything it is not compelled to do under the present legislation. All it does is to give the compensation board more discretion so that they can deal with various types of cases. We all realize that when a number of children are orphaned, it is desirable to keep the family
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act together as much as possible. However, there are cases in which there is only one child. There are cases in which the family cannot be kept together. In those cases some other provision must be made for them. However, under the present legislation that provision cannot be made. If provisions are made which are in the best interests of the child, then the person or the foster parent is penalized as a result. That brings me to the second purpose of this bill which is really to enable the merchant seamen compensation board to make better provision for the welfare of the orphaned children or the orphaned child and to be able to do it without penalizing the person who undertakes this responsibility.
In the quotation I just read from Hansard there is just one point I wish to repeat:
This amendment would have the effect of entitling the foster mother to the widow's pension of $75 a month as long as she was caring for the children up to the age of 18 years-
What the parliamentary secretary did not say-and this is the great omission in this case-is that for that mother or foster mother to get the full pension of $75 a month under the present act, that foster mother must move into the home which belongs to the deceased parent. In this connection, I wish to ask two questions. Who can expect to get a foster mother-or anybody else for that matter- to move into a home, undertake the care and the maintenance of the home, the care of the children, supply them with food and clothing and keep up a shelter for $75 a month? Certainly the day is gone when it is realistic to expect a person to be able to do that. I think that emphasizes the need for some change in this particular law. The real trouble is that the present law is not flexible enough to deal with the many different types of cases that must be dealt with. I know of some in my riding. That is why I am particularly interested in this bill.
During the election campaign last June I made a particular point of visiting one of these orphans. This was a single child and it was impossible to get anybody to move into the house which had belonged to the child's parents. As I said before, the remuneration of $75 a month is not enough to induce anybody to take that responsibility. So the only alternative was to move the child to somebody else's house. In this case that is the only thing that could be done; but because that was done, because the person looking after the child did not move with her children into the house of the orphan's deceased parents she could not get the full allowance. Do you know how much she has been getting on
2460	HOUSE OF
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act behalf of that child simply because it was impossible for her to move into the house occupied by the parents of the deceased? Instead of the $75 she could have got which, as I said, would have been inadequate, she could only get $20 a month because the child was moved into her house, which was a much better and more comfortable home than the child had ever had before. That is all that has been paid for that child throughout the years.
The child is now 14 or 15 years of age and there are school expenses, which means that $20 is not adequate. If this amendment were made the merchant seamen's compensation board in any case would have discretion to make the arrangements that have to be made and would be able to remunerate the person suitably and more equitably than is the case at the present time.
I do not want to take too much time because other members want to speak on this bill, but I wish to emphasize again that the bill does not compel the board to separate families. The board still has the discretion it has always had and if they feel that the best thing to do is to keep the family together under one roof, then the bill does not stop them from doing so. They could do so before and they can do so under this bill. In this day and age it is very unlikely you will get anyone to accept such a responsibility for $75 a month. The bill does not interfere with the board's judgment in any way. It is a very simple bill designed merely to give the board more freedom to act, more freedom to deal with different types of cases and to deal with them in a better way. Therefore I hope that the bill will receive the support of the house.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member permit a question? I did not like to interrupt this thoughtful speech. Can he tell us approximately how many people would be involved as a result of his proposed amendment? Would the number be in the hundreds, or fewer than that?


Chesley William Carter: I would think there would be hundreds along the Atlantic seaboard. There are several in my own riding and I would say there would be a hundred in my own province. Taking the maritime provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as well, I would think that several hundred orphans would be affected.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I hope that a landlubber from the inland port of Peace River may be permitted to participate in the debate on this bill in respect to which I commend the hon. member for the humanitarian motives which appear to actuate him in bringing this matter to the attention of the house. I am not raising any formal objection


but I should like to call the hon. member's attention to something to which he might well give some consideration before this matter reaches the stage when it is voted on, and I may say that what I have in mind is accentuated by the answer made by the hon. member to the question asked by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works.
I would point out that this is a bill which in its result may well have the effect of extending the terms of payment of a fund to a larger number of people than have been permitted to participate in its benefits up to now. Whether it is considered to be a fund which the crown is directly or indirectly distributing, or whether it is more on the basis of an insurance fund, as in the case of most compensation boards, may be an issue; but if it is in fact considered a fund which the crown is distributing then the hon. member is seeking as a private member, even with the most laudable objectives, to extend the number of people who may recover from the fund. I simply bring this matter to his attention. I am not raising it as a formal point of order but mentioning it now for consideration later.
I am inclined to the view that the hon. member may well have misconceived or misinterpreted the legislation. The act which he wishes to deal with, of course, is the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act and the particular section he is dealing with is section 30, subsection 2, which reads in part as follows:
Where the seaman leaves no widow or the widow subsequently dies, and it seems desirable to continue the existing household-
I think he has given to the word "household" an interpretation which substantially strains the meaning. I think he connotes household with house, and I do not think this is the intention at all. As I read the act, and I went through it briefly today, this particular subsection is an attempt to retain intact the domestic family which survives the death of (a) the seaman or (b) the widow of the seaman. I do not think it matters at all where the household, and by that I mean the family, is maintained. Whether it be in the house where the seaman or widow died or whether it be in the house of the proposed foster parents, as long as the household or family is maintained intact as a unit under the normal provisions with regard to a family, then there is eligibility for the foster mother to receive this additional payment.
I have a dictionary here, a reasonably compact one which I can master in the house- Thorndike-Barnhart-and I refer to the meaning of the word "household" given in that dictionary:
All the people living in a house; family; family and servants; a royal household.

And so on. I think that section 30 is quite plain and specific. It simply says that a person qualifies to receive this additional benefit provided the household, meaning the family, is retained intact. In the explanatory notes to the bill the hon. member also labours under this misapprehension because he says there:
Under the present wording, the allowance is paid only if the person moves into the household of the deceased seaman or deceased seaman's widow.
Now, if you delete the word "household" and substitute for it the word "house", then I think my hon. friend would be correct. I suggest that in his amendment he has attempted to use the words "domestic establishment" and I imagine he has used those words in an attempt to distinguish between the word "household" and the sort of thing he has in mind. In looking at the same dictionary, I find that the word "establishment" has a number of meanings one of which is household. I think, and I submit this with some strength, that although I do not know what interpretation may have been placed upon this by the board-I am going to come to that in a minute-I would say that the act as it is now achieves the result which the hon. gentleman feels can only be achieved by his amendment.
I should like to refer to section 14 of the act itself. This is the type of section we see in all these compensation acts. I quote:
The board has exclusive jurisdiction to examine into, hear and determine all matters and questions arising under this act and as to any matter or thing in respect of which any power, authority or discretion is conferred upon the board, and the action or decision of the board thereon is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in any court-
This section has been the subject of a considerable number of judicial interpretations. As a matter of fact, I had the misfortune to run up against one of them myself. I think this question has even been taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it has been ruled this sort of section in a compensation act means exactly what it says. This is something we cannot say about all legislation. The boards constituted under compensation legislation have absolutely no impediment in interpreting an act. For example, they can decide who is eligible, decide the extent of injuries and who is entitled to the payment of benefits under the act.
My suggestion is that instead of bringing this forward as an issue to be debated in parliament, the proper authority to whom these representations should be made is the board. It may well be that I am labouring under a misapprehension. It may well be that a decision has been made by the board on this matter. I would say to the hon. member
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act that if he can be as eloquent in taking his case before the board as he has been before this house, there is no reason why he cannot persuade the board, which is not bound by precedent and is able to amend or vary its decisions, to accept the validity of his argument and make the corresponding changes.
I mention that because I see this act was originally passed in 1946, was introduced into the revised statutes in 1952 as chapter 178, and has since been amended in 1952-53 and in 1957. I just had a moment to look through the 1957 debates. I observed that this particular section, not the subsection but section 30, was the subject of an amendment and of a considerable amount of discussion. At that time, of course, conditions were reversed and hon. members who are now in opposition were sitting on this side of the house. The hon. member who sponsored this bill spoke in connection with this particular amendment in 1957. I could be unkind, possibly, and suggest that certain legislation which in 1957, in the opinion of hon. members opposite, was scintillating, bright and needed no amendment, suddenly after 1957, upon mature reflection and consideration, appeared to be not quite as suitable. This may well be the case, but I am not suggesting it is.
In 1957, the hon. member made no reference to this particular aspect of the act. It may well be that from then until he introduced his bill cases may have been brought to his attention which did not exist before. If so, of course, that would be a good reason for introducing this measure at this time. I feel that when we attempt to vary, mould or amend laws to meet every case, even a few isolated cases, we frequently get ourselves into difficulty. Where you have an act which gives a board that broad jurisdiction which is given under section 14, it seems to me that board is the place where representations should be made. Possibly the hon. gentleman may have an opportunity of telling me later that the board has made firm decisions on this point. I feel that with a logical and reasonable interpretation of the section as it now stands, and with the cooperation of the board, everything which he asks in this bill can now be obtained. (Translation):


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief remarks on Bill C-25 now under discussion and entitled, an Act to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.
This bill provides a wider choice of residence for the persons who accept to care for children who have been prematurely deprived of their parents.
2462	HOUSE OF
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act
Under paragraph (2) of section 30 of the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, it seems that a sister, an aunt or any other person called upon to care for the children of deceased seamen, is obliged to move into the former household. In my opinion, such a restriction should be abolished, and I feel that the mover of this bill has taken a right view of things, since he represents a maritime district and he may be better aware than many of us of the problems resulting from the provisions of the act, especially in paragraph (2) of section 30.
Mr. Speaker, not only am I not a seaman, but I do not represent a region where seamen live. The riding I have the honour of representing is located in the hinterland, but nevertheless I want to support the efforts of the mover of this bill and I also want to assure him of the support of the people in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the proposed amendment to the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act will be adopted, because it will take a great load off our seamen's minds.
I support the bill because the Social Credit party, of which I am a member, is the defender of freedom and is in favour of everything that is conducive to that freedom. In fact, the Social Crediters have proved it many times since the beginning of the session and will certainly keep on proving it.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian merchant seamen have rendered great services to their country and since they have to work in extremely dangerous conditions at times, we should see to it that in case of sudden death, their families would be secure and could move somewhere else if they wish to do so.
I can understand that after the death of the head of the family, a widow or the person who is entrusted with the care of the children may want to change domicile. Those people should be free to choose where they want to live without any risk of losing the compensation under the act.
Thanks to this legislation, it may be easier to find kindhearted individuals to look after the education of those unfortunate children. In fact, as the mover of the bill stated, the law is so restrictive at present that it may easily scare anyone who might be willing to take on such a responsibility. That is why I am in favour of the bill and I hope that it will go through so that people will be encouraged to take care of those orphans.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party are once


again quite pleased to support the principle of this bill and I, as a member coming from British Columbia, which is a maritime province, am very pleased to support it because there must be similar circumstances on the Pacific coast to those on the Atlantic.
The purpose of the bill is to meet circumstances which time and experience in the administration of the act have proven cannot be met without amendment to the act. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has a certain necessary function to perform with respect to a bill like this. I am not blaming him as an individual, but I thought he was using rather legalistic arguments. I could see he was experiencing heavy weather in giving a narrow legal argument in opposition to the principle of the bill; but hon. members in all parties who supported legislation in years gone past and thought the legislation was quite satisfactory have later, in the light of experience, found themselves proposing amendments to it. That is exactly the situation with respect to this bill.
The hon. member for Peace River, or to give him his due status in society, the parliamentary secretary, mentioned something to the effect that the hon. member who introduced the bill failed to introduce this amendment prior to 1957; but no doubt in the meantime the hon. member has gained much experience and knowledge as a result of representations made to him by the seamen or relatives of the seamen and saw the necessity for this amendment.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) and I have sharply differed on a number of occasions in this house, but on this occasion I give the hon. member full credit for having a close personal knowledge of the circumstances that warrant this amendment to the act, the circumstances under which seamen are employed, and the circumstances surrounding the administration of the act. During the years in which he has been a member of the veterans affairs committee he has demonstrated that he has a very sound knowledge of sea-going affairs, because of the riding which he represents and the circumstances under which he lives.
So far as this group are concerned, we are convinced he has advanced sound arguments in support of the amendment to show that it will be fair to the employers and will be of no expense to the consolidated revenue fund. If the parliamentary secretary has any doubt as to the cost of this amendment to the employers, I suggest he would be well advised to support the bill and then move that it be sent to the industrial

relations committee where it could be studied and witnesses called representing the seamen, the employers and any other groups who have personal knowledge of the circumstances which have prompted the hon. member to introduce the bill.
I cannot accept the narrow, legalistic argument of the parliamentary secretary, and his suggestion that the place for the hon. member to make his representations is before the board. The experience of hon. members of the house in making representations before boards has proven that to be a rather fruitless procedure. We have even had the premiers of provinces recently making representations to the board of transport commissioners with respect to the discontinuance of train and passenger services.
I suggest hon. members would be very well advised to ignore the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary and support the bill, so that the people it is intended to serve will benefit as quickly as possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I have waited until the hon. member finished, I want to make it absolutely clear I made no reference to the question of additional cost to the employers. I based my view on the very broad ground that the power sought already exists in the act.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to register my support for the amendment to the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act proposed by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. I do so for one particular reason and that is that I believe the amendment is necessary. I agree that sometimes laws are made and it is not necessary to amend them; but all hon. members in the house know that certain laws, in the light of experience, have to be amended, and this is just one case where an amendment is really necessary.
The important thing to bear in mind is the welfare of the child or children involved. It may be possible in some cases to find a woman to take care of one or more children in the home where the children were born, but it is not always possible to do that. Sometimes a man or woman can be found who will look after children in his or her own home but who would not move to the original home of the children. In such a case, and if the children are going to be better cared for in the home of the foster parent, then the board should have the right to say that the maximum compensation will be paid to the person looking after the children.
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act
This amendment would give the board wider latitude in looking after such cases, and these cases really need attention.
Quite often when an explanation is demanded from the board, the reason which the board gives for not making the maximum allowance to a child is that the child is not living in its original home, and one can assume that if the child were living in its original home it would receive the maximum benefit permissible under the act.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Mc-Cleave) wanted to know the number of children involved. I recognize that legislation should not be made to cater to individual cases; but if legislation can be amended to make it more applicable to individual cases, I think that should be done. I do not think the number of children involved is an important question here. I was very interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Peace Paver and I must admit that his interpretation of the word "household" corresponds with mine. I believe that if the board were entitled to use that interpretation of the word "household" the full purpose of this amendment would be achieved. If "household" were to mean the home in which the child was born or the home in which the foster parent lived then the purpose of the amendment proposed by the hon. member would be achieved perfectly.
The hon. member for Peace River also made reference to the amount of money that might have to be spent in an increasing quantity if more of these cases were allowed under this act. I should point out to him that at the bottom of the explanatory notes this statement is made:
The costs of the administration of the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act and the compensation payable thereunder are chargeable to the employers and not against the consolidated revenue fund.
I think there are cases where, because this section of the act is not interpreted generously enough, some children of merchant seamen are not receiving the allowance which they should receive. I think a change needs to be made in the legislation so that the board will be given the latitude which will allow them to decide that a child or children, if they are going to be more properly cared for in the home of the foster parent, may live in the home of the foster parent and receive the maximum allowance which they would receive if they were living in the original home.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I do not quarrel with the laudability of the amendment presented to us this afternoon or the most interesting speech by the
2484	HOUSE OF
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter). However, I should like to point out what I regard as the main principle of his bill and one to which the house should give consideration. I would ask the question whether in cases of this kind we should proceed on the basis of legislation comparable to workmen's compensation plans in the provinces or on the basis of legislation comparable to benefits given under the war pensions and allowances plans.
I believe the hon. member has adopted, by his argument, a course of proceeding by legislation comparable to military pensions; but I suggest, sir, that the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act in its original purpose, in its framework, in its philosophy, in the way it was set out, was analogous-parallel, if you like-to the workmen's compensation acts of the various provinces. I do not say this is fatal to his bill. I would not argue that at all. But I think it should be at least known to the house that the apparent original purpose of the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act when it was passed by this parliament was to set up legislation comparable to workmen's compensation. I suggest, sir, from my knowledge-and I admit it is imperfect-that the provincial workmen's compensation acts do not contain provisions similar to the one presented to us in Bill No. C-25. Perhaps I am wrong in that, but that is my understanding from information given to me.
May I suggest a way that this problem, if it can be treated as a problem, should be solved. I think we all recognize the need for some help for the orphan class mentioned in the bill of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. It seems to me that to make our legislation all of a piece this is the sort of thing where the federal Department of Labour and the provincial departments of labour could work out a common philosophy for both workmen's compensation and the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.
I now come to another point, Mr. Speaker. What are the rights or privileges with respect to orphan children as they now exist under the present act? First, a payment of $35 per month may be made to them until they reach the age of 18. Second, where it seems desirable to continue the existing household a suitable person acts as foster mother in keeping up the household and maintaining and taking care of these orphans entitled to compensation. That duty must be carried out in a manner satisfactory to the board. Under these circumstances the foster mother I have mentioned would be entitled to receive the same monthly payment for herself to a total of $75 per month, and the children $25 a month, as if she were the


widow of the deceased. Under the amendment presented to us by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo the bill would widen the discretion of the merchant seamen compensation board and make an allowance to a person who undertakes the care and main-tainance of orphans of merchant seamen who are entitled to compensation under this act.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) raised the question of the phrase "existing household". I understand there is no precise definition under the act we are considering as to the exact meaning of "existing household". However, apparently it means people living together as a unit under the same roof. As my hon. friend for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) points out to me, it does not mean the existing dwelling as a residence, but it is the family kept intact as a unit in the place where that is done. The hon. member by his amendment proposes that there be no requirement or prior condition that the existing household be continued, if I understand him correctly. He pointed out the example of an orphan in his riding who would, if the act were changed, receive a much greater benefit by being placed in a much better home and in the care of a person who would be able to do much more for him.
The amendment only requires that foster mothers maintain or care for such orphans or orphan. The keeping up of a domestic establishment is no longer a requirement. I asked the hon. member how many people would be involved if this amendment were to carry and I believe he gave the answer that 100 or more would be involved in his own province, and he projected that to hundreds in the maritime or Atlantic provinces of Canada. I am not sure if I understood him correctly as meaning this would be the total number of people who were now deprived of advantages under the act, advantages which they would otherwise receive. In any event, I find myself in sympathy with the bill more from the standpoint of heart or emotion than from reaching a conclusion on an intellectual basis because, as I pointed out earlier, the purpose of the act when originally set up was to parallel the function of the workmen's compensation boards in the various provinces and not, as the hon. member has said this afternoon, to parallel the provisions of the Pension Act. But whether that is a defect or not, I think the bill is worthy of our consideration and support.


John Chester MacRae: I should like to enter this debate briefly. I find myself in the rare position of agreeing completely with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's,

and I find myself in almost complete disagreement with my colleagues on this side of the house, the hon. member for Peace River and some others who have spoken. I shall attempt to show the points of difference as I continue.
The point was well taken that the important thing to do in the case of orphan children is to try to keep the family together, if that is possible. However, we must realize that if there is only one child there is often no family left to keep together-there is only one child for whom the best possible future should be provided. At the other end of the scale, if there is a large number of children it might be impossible to keep a family of eight, ten or more children together. What could be more sensible than to keep children in a good home rather than grasp at the services of someone who might be completely unsatisfactory for the sake of $75-not a large amount these days, it is true, though it would be helpful in supplementing income from other sources. If it is possible to get two or three children into a good home, full payment should be made in such a case. I think that point was well taken. I do not think any penalty should be imposed because a child is taken under another roof. After all, we do want to provide the best possible home for the child.
I was interested in another phase of this debate in connection with the merchant seamen of this country. This is a maritime nation with a long coast line. We know that in two wars if it had not been for the gallant contribution of these men the tide of events might have turned out differently. Many lost their lives but, happily, many survived. I can think of one member of this house, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) who served for six years and has a gallant record of service in the merchant navy. I think anything we can do to make service in the merchant navy more attractive should be done. I think that is a principle of this bill, too. I know the hon. member who introduced the measure is most sincere about this. If a man can go to sea knowing that, should he lose his life, his wife and children will get the best possible care, that is most important to him.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave)-the taller member for Halifax, we sometimes call him-said, if I understood him correctly, that we should not try to make this legislation parallel to the provisions of the Pension Act. Here again, I find myself in disagreement with a colleague on this side of the house because I think those of us who serve on the veterans affairs committee and, indeed, most people in Canada, agree that Canadian pension legislation is second to none. If we could pattern the rest
Business of the House
of our legislation on the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act I think we should have a better country in which to live. A year ago the merchant seamen who served in wartime came under the War Veterans Allowance Act for the first time. Prior to that they had been provided for under certain parts of the veterans charter. It seems to me that this was a change which was long overdue.
Perhaps my hon. friend from Halifax did not read the sections of the Pension Act which are specially applicable. They are mentioned here in the explanatory notes on this bill where we are invited to compare subsections (9), (10) and (10a) of section 26 of the Pension Act as substituted by chapter 10 of the 196061 session. I should like to quote briefly from section 26:
(9)	On and after the death of the wife of a pensioner pensioned on account of disability, or the dissolution of her marriage, the additional pension for a married member of the forces may, in the discretion of the commission, be continued to him for so long as there is a minor child or there are minor children in respect of whom additional pension is being paid, if there exists a daughter or other person competent to assume and who does assume the household duties and care of the said child or children.
Then subsection 10 goes on to say:
(10)	On and after the death of a widow of a member of the forces who has been in receipt of a pension, the pension for the widow may, in the discretion of the commission, be continued for so long as there is a minor child or there are minor children to or in respect of whom a pension is being paid, to a daughter or other person competent to assume and who does assume the household duties and care of the other child or children; in such cases the pension payable for children shall continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the leader of the house could give us any information about what business the government proposes to bring before the house next week. In asking this I would draw the attention of the leader of the house to the fact that last night my hon. friend from Laurier pointed out that there was to have been a conference today- and I know he waited for it most of the day today-among the house leaders to effect co-operation with regard to business.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate gets exercised over these matters. A meeting of the leaders of the various parties was held yesterday at which certain conclusions were reached. I was then instructed to draft a proposed timetable for the coming week and submit it to the whips to transmit to their respective leaders. The

Business of the House
whips were asked to meet last night at 8.15 or 8.30 but none of them appeared, and until I get word from the whips as to whether there are modifications desired in this program there is not much purpose in attempting to have further consultations.


Mr. Habel:: On a question of privilege, last night we were asked, as whips, to meet. I informed the government whip that this matter was to be dealt with by the house leaders of each party-that the whips had nothing to do with it. They were told immediately that it was to be taken up with the house leaders of each party, not with the whips. The minister is not going to get away with that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not trying to get away with anything. If there is a lack of communication between the parties, that is not my responsibility.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, it is a well known fact that when my hon. friend the hon. member for Laurier is not here I act on his behalf. The hon. member for Laurier was told by the leader of our party after the meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday that the house leaders had been instructed to meet at the call of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and the hon. member for Laurier has been waiting since that time until about an hour ago to attend that meeting. To the best of my knowledge that meeting has not been called. My hon. friend has had to go away and he has instructed me to attend in his place if it is called. All this shows to me that the government does not want co-operation and that it does not want to get on with its business.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not taking instructions from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate or from any one other than the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Speak up.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said I am not taking instructions from anyone in this house with the exception of the Prime Minister, and I have told the house what my instructions were.
On Monday we shall continue with the discussion of the bill dealing with the Atlantic development board which we were on today, and we shall follow that with a discussion of the national economic development board bill which is now in second reading. I hope the leaders of the various parties will examine the proposed timetable which has been typed out and distributed. If there are suggestions to be made, on Monday we could consider the matter.
I would like, also, on Monday, to ask the house to give consideration at five o'clock as

the first item during that period to the bill standing in the name of hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) dealing with a proposal concerning the handling of divorce in parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the leader of the house whether any proposal has been made in an informal way about the last point which the hon. gentleman raised because, normally, motions, not bills are taken on Mondays. I am not offering any objection, but has any proposal been made to the leaders of the other parties about this?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This matter was discussed at a meeting of the leaders in the Prime Minister's office and I asked the hon. member for Marquette to make an investigation himself to see if this would be agreeable to the various parties.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I make a suggestion with regard to the business of the house. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has suggested that the program which has been given to each of the political leaders be reviewed. I just wish to point out that as to the meeting which was held yesterday with the Prime Minister I think there has been some misunderstanding, and I think we ought not to discontinue the arrangements which were suggested the other day. There may be some misunderstanding as to what the terms were. Certainly my understanding was that the whips and the house leaders would meet. I would suggest that this idea be carried forward. I do not think we should be asked just to accept the list of legislation sent to us by a representative of the government. I think the whips and the house leaders should review the matter. Then the meeting which the Prime Minister said would be held with the leaders of the various parties could then be proceeded with.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That throws some more light on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Without creating a precedent, I think there is perhaps under the circumstances some justification for members from each of the parties speaking. However, this is not a rule of conduct, namely that on the discussion of business we get representatives of all the parties participating. It is usually the opposition house leader who asks the house leader what the business is to be. In the circumstances, however, if there is some point to be clarified, I will hear the hon. member for Red Deer.


Mr. Thompson:: I should just like to verify what was said by the hon. member for

Burnaby-Coquitlam. This was the arrangement that I understood was to be followed. I understood that when the whips and the house leaders got together, then the leaders would again meet to verify the procedure we would follow. I mention this only because we certainly wish to go ahead with legislation. This was the purpose of our meeting
Business of the House and this is what we ought to be doing. I would also mention that it was agreed the other day that we go ahead with this divorce question; and it was our plan that it come up as soon as possible, if there is agreement.


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday. December 10. 1962