1962-12-04

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Alan Macnaughton (Mount Royal) presented the first report of the standing committee on public accounts and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: In the absence of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and at his request, may I have the unanimous consent of the house to introduce his bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house consent unanimously to the hon. member for Lapointe introducing the bill in the name of the hon. member for Villeneuve?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer reported to have been given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to a question asked him yesterday, whether nuclear arms were in Canadian custody at the present time: "No, not as far as I know", may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will inform this house, including his colleagues in the cabinet, whether Canada does possess nuclear weapons at this time?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: 1 am sure the hon. gentleman never made the statement in question, because each and every one of my colleagues knows what the house already knows, namely that we have not.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps I might answer the Leader of the Opposition. I mentioned the 27507-3-145
atomic capability of the weapons used by our forces overseas, and the reporter mistook this to mean atomic weapons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would he inform the house what he meant by his reported answer yesterday in Toronto that the departments of government, other than the Department of National Defence, are all too large to know the details, that is about atomic weapons?


George Harris Hees: I am delighted to reply to the Leader of the Opposition and let him know the answer to his question. I was asked by the reporter concerning some questions about details of the weapons used by our forces, and I said that to get detailed information about those weapons he should, of course, refer to my colleague the Minister of National Defence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You were misquoted, then.


George Harris Hees: No, not at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I trust that we will not get into a minor debate here on national defence. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was under the impression that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was rising to ask a supplementary question, but if he was not, then-


Mr. Pickersgill:: You were quite correct, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I will recognize him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question about his interesting peregrinations in the University of Toronto. Would the minister explain to the house his reported statement that a study of Canada's anti-combines legislation is underway in Ottawa to search for a safe means of allowing industrial concentration to take place?


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest deference, I hardly think that is a supplementary. We were on the subject of nuclear weapons. If the hon. member for Kootenay West is on that narrow field he may ask a supplementary.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I will broaden the field; it is a question now. I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Is NATO a nuclear power?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, two of the countries of NATO and a third partially are nuclear powers. In other words, as the hon. member and I think all hon. members know, the United States and the United Kingdom both have nuclear weapons, and France is in process of building them. The hon. member asks whether NATO is a nuclear power. NATO is an alliance of nations, three of which have nuclear capabilities.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister. Could he inform the house how many NATO members have bilateral agreements with the United States for the control of nuclear weapons?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am in a position at the moment to give that information. The information would have to come originally from the United States, which is one party to all the bilateral agreements which exist.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Triniiy):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will now agree to the setting up of a special parliamentary committee on defence, in order that all members of the house including, and perhaps more particularly, members of the ministry may have an opportunity to inform themselves.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is a most desirable objective that the hon. gentleman should have information, but in so far as a committee is concerned there has been no change in the attitude of the government.



INQUIRY AS TO SUITABILITY OF F-104 PLANE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the report from Bonn yesterday to the effect that the Star-fighter is unsuitable for the role assigned to it, may I ask the minister whether this is the same aircraft as that known as the CF-104, which is being manufactured for the Canadian NATO air division?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report referred to. Until I have seen what it is I should not like to comment on this
tMr. Speaker.]
particular matter. The Starfighter is a name which is applied to the F-104. However, I might point out that the F-104 comes in several configurations. Some of them are strike reconnaissance planes, others are fighter bombers and still others are straight fighter aircraft.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was so anxious to do so a moment ago, would now answer my question.


George Harris Hees: Yes, I would be very glad to. Consistent with the policy of this government and my department continually to seek ways in which Canadian companies and individuals can become more productive, and thereby provide more jobs for their fellow Canadians to work at-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest with
deference to both the questioner and the minister that we are not now back in the University of Toronto. Let us get on with the business of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. gentleman made a statement in Toronto on government policy, or what purported to be on government policy, to the effect that the combines act was going to be changed to allow industrial concentration to take place. I suggest, sir, that is not a subject for debate, that is a proper subject for inquiry in the house. If government policy is to be announced in the University of Toronto, we are surely entitled to know about it here.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not denying that for one moment. I was cutting off what I was beginning to feel was becoming a political debate instead of an answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister was making a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us also watch our questions, as well as the answers.


George Harris Hees: Consistent with the aims of this government, of which I spoke a few moments ago, I did not announce any government policy. I simply informed the press conference at which I was speaking yesterday that my department is searching into ways and means which it could suggest to the justice department of amending the act so as to allow this very desirable circumstance to

Inquiries of the Ministry
take place, which would result in more pro- members of parliament who have got beyond duetivity on the part of Canadian companies sitting up in a day coach, can the Prime without infringing upon the interests of the Minister inform the house when he expects individual Canadian in any way whatsoever, we will adjourn for Christmas so we can make
the necessary arrangements for sleeping HOUSE OF COMMONS	accommodation?



ST. JOHN'S WEST, NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO BY-ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of a reply he gave me on November 20, as recorded at page 1808 of Hansard. Does the Prime Minister not think that the residents of St. John's West, Newfoundland, are entitled to a representative in the House of Commons as soon as one can be elected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It may be that the hon. gentleman may desire some information about a by-election. However, when he indicates at the beginning of his question "Does he not think that" I am sure he is inviting an argumentative answer. Within those limitations I think I will allow the question, but with some doubt. If the Prime Minister wishes to reply he may do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the limitations are. Under law the government is required within a certain period of time to call by-elections. This government has called by-elections within a reasonable time. That course will be followed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question?


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Dictator.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More bad temper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Roy Tucker: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister think that a Liberal seat for our worthy leader at this time would be an appropriate New Year's gift?


Mr. Speaker:: I think I will not comment on the question. I recognize the hon. member for Coast-Capilano.



INQUIRY AS TO CHRISTMAS RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. For the convenience of aging 27507-3-1454


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is a most desirable objective. I want the hon. gentleman to sleep and sleep comfortably at all times. We will try to give an answer to this question at an early date, having regard to the progress made with the matters that are before the house.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister was good enough on Friday to tell the house that the Canadian government was currently participating in negotiations to sell downstream benefit power in the United States. Why is it doing so when, according to article VIII of the Columbia river treaty, the terms under which this sale can be made are to be established "as soon as possible after the ratification date"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When an hon. member says "Why is it doing so because" he is inviting argument or is advancing argument, and that procedure is quite contrary to standing order 39.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have reworded my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What is the point of the current negotiations on the Columbia, when the terms under which downstream power is to be sold in the United States-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize immediately that he was arguing the point when he said "What is the point", in doing certain things, "if". I think he will agree that he is quite out of order.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. P. Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have given the Minister of Public Works notice of this question and I should like to put it to him now. In order immediately to further the winter works program,

Inquiries of the Ministry will National Housing Act guarantees on maximum first mortgage loans by private lenders on existing homes be made available, provided that all necessary and stipulated interior renovations and mortgage advances are made in the winter months, save for any needed advance or hold-back for completion of exterior work in the fall or spring?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It may be that the minister may wish to answer the question. However, I suggest to the hon. member that his question is rather long and involved.


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Public Works):: The answer is that as I have indicated earlier, the suggestion which has been advanced on a number of occasions, not only by the national house building association, that mortgage advances on existing houses be covered under the National Housing Act is under consideration. When a decision is reached it will be announced in the ordinary way.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the obvious misunderstanding and certainly the disagreement of opinion among important sectors of the people of Canada, would the Prime Minister consider placing the draft Columbia river treaty before a committee of parliament before the Christmas recess?
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I do not agree in any way with the expression used by the hon. member as to any misunderstanding. As far as the question in particular is concerned, the answer is no.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I now wish to answer a question which was asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to artillery and long range mortars requested by India. A review of the records reveals that India made a request to several countries, including Canada, for mountain artillery and long range howitzers which could reach up to 10,000 yards. They needed them urgently in order to deal with the Chinese [DOT]onslaught. The matter was looked into and it

was found that the mortars available in Canada were not of the type the Indian government needed and that in so far as mountain artillery was concerned, which they requested, we had none.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and arises out of the papers he tabled yesterday with regard to the council of ministers of the O.E.C.D. Can the minister indicate to the house at this time what steps the government is taking pursuant to the ministerial resolution to assist in formulating concerted policies designed to further the economic development of the less developed countries?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Jusiice): All appropriate steps, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRESENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister any recent information about the withdrawal of Chinese troops from the Indian border and the general situation in that part of the world?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can add on that matter today.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON AGENDA OF CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If he is going to attend the NATO council meeting, does he not think he should give the house some indication of some of the matters which will be considered at that meeting, and particularly those matters which have been covered by some of the questions today concerning the possession of nuclear arms?


Howard Charles Green: I expect to be leaving a week from today for the NATO ministers' meeting in Paris. As the hon. member knows very well, the agenda for these meetings is not made public and it would be inappropriate for me to make a statement such as he suggests before attending the conference.


CIVIL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Did the recent dominion-provincial conference on civil defence study any civil defence plans of the United States of America?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Bur-rard):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell us when he will report to us on the dominion-provincial conference on civil defence held recently, and when he does so will he tell the house what the government policy is in respect of community shelters?
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National
Defence): I shall be glad to report on this matter when my estimates are up for consideration.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Turner (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance would undertake to use his influence with his minister to persuade him to table the documents relating to the forward commitments on foreign exchange entered into by the Bank of Canada, before the house rises for the Christmas holidays?


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: I shall do this, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Can the
Prime Minister tell the house whether he has been asked to set up a royal commission on bilingualism in Canada and whether he intends to accede to that request?
Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, that matter will receive appropriate consideration and when the government is in a position to advise, the house will be informed.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour approximately when the French translation of the Gill report will be ready.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: As I said the other day, I was informed they were rushing it through and it would be ready as soon as possible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. In view of the repeated questions on this subject since the beginning of this session, can the minister tell the house whether the government will have this report before Christmas, and in that event will the minister tell us when the government proposes to act with regard to this matter, having promised to do so three years ago?


Michael Starr: I am more anxious than the hon. member to receive this report, so we can peruse it and decide what course of action we might take in connection with its recommendations.


John Carr Munro: May I ask a supplementary question. On Wednesday last, as reported in the House of Commons debates, the minister said he would advise the house as to how many months had elapsed since-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. No reference can be made to previous debates at this time.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Lamoureux (Sformoni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Following the cancellation of the prairie air service formerly provided by Pacific Western Air Lines, is the government giving consideration to the urgent problem of providing alternate service to the North Battleford area?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Both matters are the subject of intense consideration by the government.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or, in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary. I have in my hand a $1 bill, dated 1954, and signed by Mr. Louis Rasminsky, the present governor of the Bank of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must tell the hon. member that during his absence, while he was a member of a parliamentary delegation, a similar question was answered at least twice.
(Text):



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex Souih):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What progress has been made in the marketing of surplus tobacco in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that his question should go on the order paper. It is not something that should be asked on orders of the day.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a very urgent problem in our area, due to the unemployment of 1,000 people.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree that the problem may be urgent in certain areas, but whether the information is urgently required at this moment is another question.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. What has he done about the lay-offs of tobacco workers in Essex South?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What I said previously would apply if the question were asked in respect of various regions. I realize that these matters are important in certain constituencies. However, in so far as obtaining the information at this time is concerned, I think we can go on to something else.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has yet ordered the
IMr. Balcer.]
officials of his department to remove all unsafe life jackets from the Canadian market.


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think that proposal makes any sense. Of course we cannot police all life jackets in Canada; it would be just impossible to try to find them all. I think the policy we have at the present time is a sensible one, and we intend to carry it on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are now getting into argument. The answer was quite an argumentative one.


Stanley Haidasz: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Ask it and we will see.


Stanley Haidasz: I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he would instruct his officials to investigate the accusations brought forth by the jury during a coroner's inquest in Toronto last summer, that there are unsafe life jackets distributed in Toronto.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend was not in the house the other day when I made a statement on this matter. With regard to the very sad case that occurred last summer, the life jacket involved was old; it had been torn and repaired, and it was left in a soggy condition and deteriorated. But, as I indicated the other day, our policy in these matters is to educate people and approve certain types of life jackets so we can protect the public and at the same time give a chance to industry.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Adopte; carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government orders:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish an Atlantic development board and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the

board and for the payment of certain expenses of the members thereof, to provide for the appointment of an executive director of the board and for the payment of his remuneration, to provide further that the board may engage the services of such advisers and staff as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its duites and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.
The Clerk Assistant having proceeded to read the order:
Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is of some importance that the house should hear the resolution that is before it by listening to the clerk.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I would therefore ask hon. members if they would moderate their conversations at this time.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because of the perhaps, unavoidable noise that there was in the house when Your Honour called the first item of business, before one realized it Your Honour declared it adopted. With the very greatest respect, that kind of procedure-and I beg Your Honour not to misunderstand this -makes it impossible for members of the house to do their work properly. The third reading of the food and drugs bill was passed within seconds while members were still getting arranged in their seats after questions were asked. I would respectfully object to that kind of haste; there is no need for it. I would respectfully request that we turn back to that item of business, because we-


Some hon. Members:: No.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. It is connected with another important matter on the order paper, namely the special committee, and I submit that there is no reason why this house should suddenly start rushing third reading of an important bill through in seconds. I would ask that the Chair consider reverting to that item of business, so the members of the house may have an opportunity to deal with it as it should properly be dealt with.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


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


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is raising a point on which there is little argument. I believe it has always been well established in the house that if an item is called and no one rises to object to it, the house and the
Atlantic Development Board Speaker assume that the item is agreed to. There was quite some time before the hon. member did rise to raise objection. The item was certainly called. It was the first order of business announced for this afternoon and, while I realize that it was passed quickly, nevertheless there was no objection made and I do not think we should now turn back to it, because another order is in the process of being read.
(Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Lapointe on the point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: On the
point of order. Mr. Speaker, it is not so much that I want the house to come back to the bill that has been adopted, but I would like to support the remarks made a few minutes ago, by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) to the effect that often measures are approved very quickly, without the members' knowledge, especially at the beginning of the evening sitting or after the question period. Since the beginning of this session, on two occasions, measures were adopted within a few seconds, without our having any knowledge of it or having the opportunity to state our views.
That is why I support the remarks made by the hon. member for York South and I would add that, when motions are presented and the house is asked to support a bill, you should do it both in French and in English.
(Text):


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member still on the point of order?


David Lewis: Yes, before Your Honour makes a ruling. I understand the parliamentary secretary to have said that there was time to rise. Maybe there was, if I were a lot faster than I sometimes am, or if I were a jack in the box, or other hon. members were. But with very great respect, Your Honour called the order, it was read, and whether Your Honour looked to see whether any one was getting to his feet I do not know, because by the time I rose to my feet I heard the words "Carried; adopte". There is no intention on the part of our party to hold up this legislation, but we do have what we think is an important point to place before the house. The matter was passed far too quickly for any member to have an opportunity to rise to his feet without being in a race with Your Honour, and I do not propose to race with you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: For one thing, of course the Chair will not accept any suggestion that it is moving too rapidly. The Chair is following

Atlantic Development Board the well established practices of this house. In fact, if the hon. member will consult with me I can tell him of the practice of some of my predecessors as to at what stage they were when the words "Adopte; carried" were put; they were almost around the back of the chair. However, there is no question that this bill was called. Third reading was moved and seconded, and I called it. The Clerk gave it third reading and it was adopted and carried. The house cannot toss its business back and forth. I submit that hon. members have now reached the stage where they know what is the business of the house, and they must be prepared to stand and speak when the order is called.
On the point raised by the hon. member for Lapointe, if the bell rings and there is a quorum the Chair calls the business; we do not wait around until 8.15 at night. I am not suggesting that the hon. member is implying that we should wait until 8.15 at night or whatever might be the time of resuming after adjournment, but when the bell calling members has ceased to ring there is a quorum in the house, and the house is prepared to do its business, it is the usage of this house to get on with the business. If hon. members who wish to speak on a motion know that it is coming up and they wish to catch the eye of whoever is in the chair, whether it is the chairman or the Speaker, it is their business to be in their places when the business of the house commences.
I am not indicating anything new. This is the ordinary, customary practice of this house, and with all deference to hon. members-I do not know what are the wishes of the house here-it would have to be by unanimous consent that we revert, because the order was adopted. Therefore, as I say, we could only revert by unanimous consent. Now the second item of business has been called, and unless there is unanimous consent of the house we must continue with the second item of business. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of National Revenue) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish an Atlantic development board and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the board and for the payment of certain expenses of the members thereof, to provide for the appointment of an executive director of the board and for the payment of his remuneration, to provide further that the board may engage the services of such advisers and staff as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its duties and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: On a point of order, may I point out that within five minutes we find ourselves in the same position again. It was utterly impossible to understand what the Clerk was saying.


An hon. Member:: You have your order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: In this regard I fully agree with the hon. member, but having once asked the co-operation of the house in this matter I do not think I am in the position of a teacher repeatedly addressing students. The house will kindly conform.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, in the speech from the throne this year will be found a paragraph with reference to the proposed Atlantic development board. It consisted of the following words:
You will be asked to authorize the establishment of an Atlantic development board to advise on measures and projects that will promote the economic development of the Atlantic region of Canada.
It is the implementation of that paragraph which the resolution we are now considering will accomplish. It seems fitting and proper that I emphasize the importance of the estab-ishment of the Atlantic development board. The fact that its formation was indicated in the speech from the throne, and that the resolution is before us, is assurance of that. I do not propose to go into past history in much detail as to the effort which has been made to have the federal government estab-ish such a body. I can say, however, that it has been very much in the minds of many people in the Atlantic provinces for some time.
I recall very well that from time to time I felt strongly that such a board could play an important part in the development of the Atlantic provinces. On numerous occasions we urged the setting up of the type of machinery envisaged by the resolution under somewhat flexible terms of reference, and with duties and responsibilities of a very broad nature. It was hoped that an investigation and close study of the natural resources of the Atlantic provinces, and a recommendation regarding the part that the federal government could play in full development, might be undertaken.
Our government has now decided to make this hope a reality. The resolution before us indicates concrete action in this regard. I might mention that the commission on Canada's economic prospects, which reported in 1957, suggested the setting up of a capital projects commission. I would think that the hon. gentleman who represents Davenport in

this house will be most pleased with this legislation. I am satisfied that he is. I am also very pleased with another aspect which this action indicates. It is the recognition of the general desirability of the Atlantic provinces of Canada working together. It has always been my opinion that the four provinces on the Atlantic seaboard can accomplish much for themselves by working together whenever possible.
I well recall the meeting of many interested citizens of the Atlantic provinces held in the city of Moncton in 1953, when the Atlantic provinces economic council was discussed and finally came into being. The late Angus L. Macdonald, then premier of Nova Scotia, was present at that meeting. Former premier Alex. Matheson of Prince Edward Island was there also. A representative of Premier Smallwood attended, and the New Brunswick government was present in a body. At long last a real co-operative effort was being made. The council has been very successful, and is an illustration how our four provinces can work together in an economic sense. Then we have the Atlantic premiers' conference which meets once a year, and at which all premiers and advisers meet together to discuss their various problems. This began in Fredericton in 1956 and has continued since. It likewise has served as a medium for the exchange in views and arriving at decisions for mutual co-operative action.
I would now remind the house of a question asked of the Prime Minister on April 18 last by my hon. friend from Cumberland. It was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the recent article in the Atlantic Advocate referring to the possibility of a development fund for the Atlantic provinces and in view of the recommendation, among other things, of feasibility studies of public projects in the Atlantic provinces, does the Prime Minister have any comment to make?
And the Prime Minister's reply I shall also quote:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me notice of his question. The government is now studying this matter and is giving consideration to the establishment of a federal Atlantic development board which would be empowered to examine projects recommended by provincial governments or other parties, and to give assistance and recommend appropriate plans to the government.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is as a result of that assurance given by the Prime Minister to the house in April last that we have the paragraph dealing with this matter in the speech from the throne and the resolution which is presently before us.
I should like here to make a point of special significance which I wish to bring to the attention of this committee. The contemplated legislation is another illustration
27507-3-146
Atlantic Development Board of the attitude of this government which has held office since 1957. It recognizes these facts; that we have in the Atlantic provinces a special situation deserving special attention, deserving special consideration, and demanding special action. The vehicle for this special action is before us for attention this afternoon. The opportunity is offered to us all to heartily endorse the attempt to attack our disabilities and to secure the assistance of the central government in so doing. I would hope that we are all thankful for the chance to indicate our approval.
Since my hon. friend from Cumberland has referred to the Atlantic Advocate, presumably to the issue of March 1962, I have taken the trouble to look up that article on which his question appears to have been based. It is to be found on page 14 of the Atlantic Advocate for March 1962, under the heading "Plan of action". I should like, Mr. Chairman, to quote some of the statements contained in this article. First of all it quotes scripture as follows:
Unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
Then it asks the question:
Does familiarity with it breed acceptance? Should the maritimes be content with this philosophy?
Then the article goes on to say:
A chain is as strong as its weakest link; and the economy of Canada is as strong as its weakest region.
So I submit that these assertions are definitely thought provoking. My opinion about them would be expressed in terms like these; that some parts of our great country may have national advantages of geography, of natural resources leading to industrial development, of somewhat less severe climate which might contribute to acceleration of population beyond the average. But the central government, with these situations in mind, should properly devote special attention to those areas which for some reason or other have lagged behind the rest of Canada. The Atlantic provinces are a region which comes under that general heading.
The contemplated action envisaged by the resolution which is presently before us is that we decide first of all:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish an Atlantic development board and to define the duties thereof-
It is the defining of the duties thereof that I should like to speak about at this moment, prior to which, however, I might just give a few of the reasons for the establishment of the board. There is a grave disparity between the average standards of the Atlantic region and those of the rest of Canada. This may be measured by average incomes, which are

Atlantic Development Board lower in the Atlantic provinces by more than a third; by capital investment per head, which is half that in the other provinces; or by the lack of opportunity which, measured by employment available, is much greater. Emigration from the maritimes has amounted to more than half a million since confederation, and continues. In the light of growing populations and the tendency toward mechanization, it would be rash to assume that the labour surplus from the Atlantic region could be absorbed in the rest of Canada in the years to come, even if it were considered justifiable as a national policy.
So I point out, Mr. Chairman, the need of addressing ourselves to the problem of creating job opportunities in our own region by developing our own natural resources, and then looking at the transportation problem and also paying some special attention to the possibilities of cultivating markets where we may have natural advantages compared with other parts of Canada by reason of our location on the Atlantic seaboard. The Atlantic development board will inquire into and report to the government suggesting measures with respect to projects which promise to accelerate the growth of the area's economy. It will consider and report after investigation on projects suggested by provincial governments and other parties. This is in accordance with the statement of the Prime Minister in April last.
The purpose of the Atlantic development board will be to suggest ways and means to improve conditions in the area so that it will be more attractive to industry. Many people believe that public investment to a more than average degree is necessary to create these conditions. I find myself in agreement with that concept. 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. 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. There is the development of the great manganese deposits in Carleton county, New Brunswick, and that of the immense deposit of ore containing a large percentage of tin in Charlotte county in that same province. Then marble comes to mind. In various parts of New Brunswick there are very impressive deposits of marble, some of which have been partially developed, but further expansion seems most desirable. Then I may mention that the base metal deposit near Bathurst is already under active development. The necessary steps are being taken

and progress is being made. I do not suggest this as a project for the Atlantic development board; it is under way. I might remind the committee, however, that the quantity of proven mineral bearing deposits of lead and zinc is something in the order of 60 million to 100 million tons, one of the largest, if not the largest in the world.
A great deal of research has been carried out by the provinces themselves and by the Atlantic provinces economic council, which has been so strong an advocate of this board. Proposals have been made for assistance in the setting up of certain so-called cornerstone industries which, it is claimed, would be likely to create other industries. The board would have a responsibility for placing the many and varied proposals in their appropriate categories, forming judgments on them or obtaining judgment on them from government sources or from outside consultants. It would be responsible for presenting its recommendations to the government and co-ordinating the passage of projects approved through the federal departments which would be concerned with them.
In this connection, a few days ago there was a discussion in this chamber concerning the coal industry, and discussion regarding the development or further development of the existing steel industry in Cape Breton. Both these subjects might well be studied by the Atlantic development board. The expansion of existing industries is quite as attractive and desirable a source of investigation as the establishment of completely new employment creating industries.
I should like to think that the Atlantic development board can be an arm of the federal government to be consulted by the provincial governments and by industry in general with a view to rendering real assistance in every sector of the development of the region. We of the Atlantic provinces are all familiar with the success that has been achieved by the interconnecting grid system made possible by the action of the government of Prime Minister Diefenbaker since it assumed office, and concurred in by all members of the house in the passing of the legislation. There is at the moment a definite improvement in the supply and price of power for industrial purposes. Electrical energy from the upper Saint John river is available, in case of need, via the grid system to the Cape Breton area, a distance of approximately 700 miles from northern New Brunswick; and power based on coal generated in Cape Breton is available to that part of New Brunswick lying close to the Quebec border. I repeat, by means of the grid system, made possible by federal legislation presented to parliament by this government, we have this

great improvement to the system. This all adds up to the idea of considering that the Atlantic provinces be connected as far as is possible as a unit. This, in my opinion, should be another aim of the Atlantic development board.
It has been suggested that the establishment of this board results from recognition of the fact that the Atlantic region is a captive market for the more highly industrialized central provinces. I agree to some extent, but I also point out that Atlantic province industry has an advantage in overseas markets. I should like to point out to the committee that at the present time a food processing plant in Carleton county, New Brunswick, is shipping frozen peas and french fried potatoes by refrigerated steamer to the United Kingdom and Europe. This reflects great credit on the young men, the McCain brothers, who are operating this plant. It also brings to our immediate notice the possibilities which exist for enterprising, alert and industrious Canadians carrying on business, capable of exploiting overseas markets.
Now I return to the functions of the board. It has been suggested that all projects should be considered on the basis of their direct and indirect impact on economic development. The board must advise only after careful consideration of all the facts and not on preconceived ideas or prejudices. It has likewise been suggested that the board shall advise on measures and projects in both the public and private sectors. It should assist and encourage new resource exploration and development; the location of cornerstone plants; the development, in primary resource industry areas, of secondary industry related industrially or economically to the primary industry; and other enterprises which can have an impact on the course of economic progress.
The board itself, playing both an active and passive role, should also be able to initiate and give advice on projects. It should consider proposals made to it. It should also have an active role in the sense of initiating studies and making recommendations. It should be flexible in its thinking. It should be prepared to consider in what way economic development in any region can be accelerated. It must realize that there is no substitute for initiative and subsequent action.
I consider that the proposed legislation to set up an Atlantic development board is the most forward step ever taken in my lifetime for the benefit of the Atlantic provinces, and that it has tremendous possibilities which should increase the level of income and ultimately contribute to greatly increased employment in the Atlantic provinces.
In the light of our present situation the role of the Atlantic development board, in a 27507-3-146J
Atlantic Development Board development program for the Atlantic provinces, might very properly be considered to be partly the development of the national economy with special relevance to the difficulties peculiar to the Atlantic region.
So, Mr. Chairman, because of my lifelong association with the Atlantic provinces, with their people and with their special problems, there are many aspects of this board and its activities that I might explore. However, let it suffice for me to say that I am proud to have this legislation come forward in my name, not only because of its importance to the Atlantic provinces and their people but because I know there are occasions when all members of this House of Commons are able and indeed I think are anxious to step beyond the bounds normally imposed on us by party affiliation. The proposals embodied in this resolution provide such an opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that in this instance we can act with one accord, and in so doing make it very clear that as members of this House of Commons our prime consideration is and always has been the needs of Canadians everywhere. I most earnestly commend this proposal to the favourable consideration of all hon. members; and at the same time may I express my belief-it is more than a hope; it is a belief-that this measure will indeed find acceptance in all corners of this House of Commons.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, all members of this House of Commons, I am sure, have listened with interest to the statement of the Minister of National Revenue. The resolution which has just been introduced by the minister provides for the establishment of an Atlantic development board with, as he said, specific duties to advise on measures and projects which will promote the economic development of the Atlantic provinces. In introducing a similar measure, but one which we could call more nation wide in its scope, a week ago today in this house the Minister of Finance stated that the so-called national economic development board would be concerned with all parts of Canada as well as with Canada as a whole. Its scope, said the Minister of Finance on that occasion, will be the three million square miles of this nation.
I express the hope that the measure now before the committee, which is similar in aims in its field of operation and achievements although more limited by geographical boundaries, will at no time enter into conflict with the national economic board which, as was stated by the Minister of Finance in introducing that particular measure, is designed to provide the soundest, most productive and most prosperous use of Canadian economic resources. I would hope that later on in this debate the Minister of National

Atlantic Development Board Revenue will give us the assurance that the Atlantic development board will not enter into conflict with the national economic board.
The Minister of National Revenue, in moving this resolution this afternoon, stated the reasons for the formation of an Atlantic development board, and he defined its duties. At the outset I wish the minister to know that we of the official opposition will support this resolution, although we will reserve the right to comment on the bill itself after we are given the opportunity to study its content. I may add that I believe I shall be the only speaker on the Liberal side of the chamber at this resolution stage, although more members on this side from the Atlantic region will wish to participate when we have seen the bill and second reading is moved.
The minister in introducing his resolution quoted the reference in the speech from the throne to the Atlantic development board. I agree with the minister and say that in the past many attempts have been made in that regard. I agree that for some time it has been in the minds of the people of the Atlantic provinces. I may state further that it was part of the recommendation in the report of the Gordon commission which was made public in 1957. The minister also referred to the desirability of working together, and he gave as an example the Atlantic provinces economic council known as APEC which, since its inception in 1954, has made different recommendations to the provincial and federal governments. In the course of my remarks I will be referring further to the work which has been done by this organization from the Atlantic provinces.
The minister also stated that such a move has been in the mind of this government since 1957. I would ask the minister this question. In view of the circumstances and conditions of the Atlantic provinces, why has it waited five years before bringing this measure into effect? As the minister said in quoting an article from the Atlantic Advocate, the economy of Canada is only as strong as its weakest region. He referred to the income of the Atlantic provinces which is one third lower, and investment capital which is approximately only half of what it is in the rest of Canada. He also referred to special projects which have been brought to the attention of the government from time to time, such as the Chignecto canal and the Prince Edward Island causeway. Later he referred to the mining possibilities both in the northern and southwestern parts of the province of New Brunswick.
The minister also referred to the price of power in the Atlantic provinces, which is of major importance in the development of our economy. He seemed to take full credit for

the grid system which is now in existence in the three maritime provinces. I should like to point out that this grid system was the idea of the minister of northern affairs and national resources under the previous administration, Mr. Lesage. This measure was proposed by Mr. Lesage and was included in the budget of Mr. Harris in March of 1957. In fact the provinces concerned had accepted the idea in principle long before this government ever took office. I must also add that the establishment of an Atlantic development board in part confirms and implements today what we of the official opposition have been suggesting in this house for the last four or five years, notwithstanding the fact that when we made proposals to that effect because of the urgent need we were branded as prophets of doom and gloom and were accused of trying to sell our country short.
Members from the Atlantic region sitting today on the government side, including the Minister of Finance, have not forgotten, I am sure, that on numerous occasions in this house they voted against proposed measures to strengthen the basic economy of the Atlantic provinces. I do not want to comment on votes that have been taken previously but I should like to refer, for example, to the vote taken in this house on June 8,
1959.	I might also add that they are the same members who on May 24, 1960, voted against a measure asking for the establishment of a national board of economic development. Yet these same members are now suggesting the formation of a similar organization. Also on May 3, 1960, when a vote was called on a motion by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to provide federal aid to the Atlantic provinces, every government member from the Atlantic region voted against the proposal. The present Minister of Finance and the now absent "so what" minister from St. John's West were among those who opposed the motion at that time. I have no doubt that this action explains why the Minister of National Revenue, who was not a member of the house at the time and was not called upon to vote against such a proposal, has been called upon today to introduce this resolution, which would have been quite embarrassing for the Minister of Finance.
As I said earlier, we will support the resolution now before us, but I reserve the right to direct to the Minister of National Revenue certain questions which I should like to have answered before the conclusion of this debate. I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether we are correct in assuming that this board will channel at least an extra $1 billion into the region in the next ten years?


Hugh John Flemming: May I
ask my hon. friend a question? What was the amount again?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: One billion dollars. I ask the minister now whether a commitment to that effect was made on a previous occasion by the Prime Minister. If such is the case, can the minister give the house some indication as to how this imposing sum may be distributed? Commenting on the announcement made by the Prime Minister during the last campaign to the effect that an Atlantic development board would be established, it was suggested by sources close to the Prime Minister that the first matters to be dealt with by this board would be the Chignecto canal and the Fundy tidal development. The minister made reference this afternoon to the Chignecto canal, but he did not refer to the Fundy development.
I should now like to ask the minister this question. After all the surveys on the physical feasibility of the project and its economic soundness, after all the statements made by members of the government to the effect that full and comprehensive studies had been carried out by officials of the departments concerned, must we now take it for granted that this new board will be much more effective in convincing the government that such projects must be proceeded without delay from the point of view of continuing to improve the standard of living in the Atlantic area?
I have a further question for the Minister of National Revenue. At the time of the appointment of the Gordon commission in 1944 Prime Minister St. Laurent invited the people of the Atlantic region to get together and submit proposals which would lead to the economic development of the area in order to assure a standard of living roughly equal to the national average. Such an invitation could not be left unanswered by the people of the Atlantic provinces.
The minister has referred in his remarks to the formation of the Atlantic provinces economic council. It is true that representatives of government, trade, industries, cultural institutions and financial groups lost no time in getting together and forming the Atlantic provinces economic council, commonly known as APEC. Since its inception in 1954 this organization has been largely a policy making and long range planning group of businessmen representing practically every line of business and industry in the Atlantic region. This group must have had a good knowledge of the problems and needs facing our area and from time to time must have offered new formulas in line with our special needs.
Atlantic Development Board
I recognize that the new president of APEC, chosen in September of this year, looks for big things from the proposed Atlantic provinces development board. Under his leadership APEC, with its board of 29 governors, has set out as its objective the selling of the region's needs to its own people and to the Canadian nation as a whole. It is hoped that the personnel of this new board will co-operate and spare no efforts to rouse our own people to further action and, at the same time, will go all out to have the rest of Canada realize that our systems of transportation, taxation, tariff charges and federal fiscal policies are detrimental to the interests and general welfare of the Atlantic region.
It has been said by members of the government that the Atlantic development board will be primarily a planning board. That statement was made by the Minister of Public Works in Halifax on November 16 of this year. The Prime Minister said during the last campaign:
-the proposed board will be made up of people familiar with problems of the Atlantic provinces. Their jobs will be to study these problems and make recommendations to the government.
It may be true that APEC may not be considered entirely as a development council; nevertheless one must admit that it has acted as a co-ordinator and promoter of development work in the Atlantic region. Now after five and a half years in office this government must recognize that in the Atlantic region the average of unemployed has been one in every ten available for work, compared with a national average in the last five years of 5i per cent to 6 per cent in the rest of Canada. In his report made public in February, 1961 Professor Cairncross, who had just completed a study of economic development in the Atlantic provinces, had this to say:
The federal government must be the principal agent of policies to eliminate the lag in economic development of the Atlantic provinces.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in view of what I have said my next question of the Minister of National Revenue will be the following. Is the minister now prepared to admit that this government has failed in its five and a half years in office to act on the recommendations made by APEC to promote the development of the Atlantic region? Furthermore, what assurance can he now give the house-


Hugh John Flemming: Do you
want me to answer that now?

Atlantic Development Board


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No; my time is limited. I will be pleased to have the answer, hut government members must know that my time is limited.
I have another question to ask of the minister. What assurance do we have now from the government that this government is prepared to adopt new policies which will tend to eliminate this lag in the economic development of the Atlantic region? The Atlantic development board should have not only a passive role but it should be empowered to act positively, to be free to initiate studies and make recommendations on its own. In order to be effective we must also have in Ottawa a government prepared to listen to the board's recommendations and act accordingly. Unless the government is prepared to help industries adapted to the region and having a reasonable prospect of success, such a board will be a waste of effort, time and energy.
The field of action of this new board is almost unlimited. In its report the Gordon commission recommended a policy of considerable expenditure of capital or the opening up of facilities designed to encourage the development of the resources of the Atlantic region, including such problems as adequate cheap power and transportation services, which have been mentioned by the minister in the course of his remarks. Thorough economic planning for the area is a must if the Atlantic region is to share equally in national economic development of our country.
I now ask, Mr. Chairman, how can such a board be effective unless it is associated with a capital assistance fund administered by special agencies of the federal government to be concerned with basic projects for promoting the over-all economic prosperity of the Atlantic region.
We all know that the federal government did not hesitate to proceed with the St. Lawrence seaway and with the trans-Canada pipe line. The present government was not unduly concerned with the economic soundness of the South Saskatchewan dam, and it did not hesitate to invest in this particular project hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money. So I ask, why so much concern by the Prime Minister and by the exminister of public works over the economic soundness of the Chignecto canal? Why is the present government, after refusing openly and squarely to consider this major project, intending to use this Atlantic development board as, I could almost say, another scapegoat in order to distract attention from its (delayed action?


The government seems at times to be quite concerned, quite embarrassed and even uneasy about our unfavourable balance of trade with foreign countries, I ask, Mr. Chairman, how much thought is being directed toward the Atlantic region's balance of payments in respect of the rest of Canada. What about our unfavourable balance of trade with central Canada and with the prairie provinces? We have reason for complaint. We have reason to be concerned, and I intend to use this as an example. A car manufacturer in central Canada shipping his automobiles and trucks by rail to Saint John, New Brunswick, uses transportation companies from Ontario to transport his cars and trucks from Saint John to the respective distribution centres in the province of New Brunswick.
While the Atlantic region offers a golden opportunity for products from central Canada and the prairie provinces, we have to depend almost entirely on export for the disposal of our own primary and industrial products. While industries in central Canada are protected by tariff walls we, in the provinces near the ocean, have to pay and pay highly for such protection in addition to prohibitive transportation costs. We are not seeking handouts. We are only fighting for our rights, our rights and justice as promised and assured us when we joined confederation. Canada is one of the few countries in the free world where the retarded regions have not received special recognition, where special measures have not been enacted to take care of emergency local or regional conditions. The United Kingdom, Belgium, Norway and Germany all had to face similar situations; all had chronically depressed areas. These countries have seen fit to cope with the situation. They have taken the necessary steps to introduce powerful and dynamic programs which met in a bold manner the needs of such areas. The two basic remedies offered by these countries have been, first, the provision of capital on easy terms, which obviously does not exist in Canada, particularly in the Atlantic region; second, special tax concessions for new industries established in depressed areas.
In June of 1957, prior to the general election, every Progressive Conservative candidate in the maritimes endorsed in no uncertain terms what was called their Atlantic resolutions. They endorsed a resolution to the effect that a national resources development program should be instituted permitting federal assistance in the Atlantic provinces for the purpose of developing our resources for the maximum benefit of the Atlantic economy. They favoured the institution of a capital projects program to provide capital assistance

for the basic economy of the area. They committed themselves to the decentralization of industry, and they assured the electors of larger defence contracts and the establishment of new crown corporations in the Atlantic provinces.
What have they done to meet these commitments and fulfil their obligations in the last five and a half years? Is this new Atlantic development board now being established to distract public attention from the mismanagement of public affairs by this government? I repeat what I said earlier. How can such a board be effective, how can it operate and play an active role in the economic development of the area, unless it provides the kind of leadership offered from a national government in all other industrialized nations to deal with our problems on a broader basis?
Most of the economic ills of the Atlantic region can be traced to a slower rate of investment than elsewhere in Canada. The Minister of National Revenue admitted this in his speech this afternoon. APEC, in its proposals to the royal commission on banking and finance, made two specific recommendations which deserve to be considered at this time. First, APEC recommended the establishment of a capital projects commission for the area. It would provide over a reasonably short period the facilities needed for further development and co-ordination of all capital spending and subsidies in the region, except those that are national in scope.
Second, it recommended the creation of a federal fund to make grants in the Atlantic provinces to help them set up cornerstone plants, those that have considerable future and a direct and indirect impact on an area's economy, as well as industrial estates or other establishments. The council recognizes that a development board will be almost useless unless it is assisted by a long run flow of funds into regional investment. The type of assistance that is now provided by the industrial development bank or other lending agencies is most inadequate, mainly on account of its short terms and excessive rates of interest.
This new board should lose no time in making a complete examination of our trade possibilities with the British Caribbean. Such islands as Jamaica, Trinidad, Tobago, the Bahamas and the Leeward and Windward islands are in the geographical proximity of year round maritime ports such as Halifax and Saint John, and the Canadian and Caribbean economies are complementary. The advantages of opportunities offered for trade exchanges with the Caribbean should be looked into by the Atlantic development board, and no effort should be spared to facilitate
Atlantic Development Board such possibilities. This government is well known for appointing boards and royal commissions.
I notice, Mr. Chairman, that my time has practically expired and in concluding my remarks I would urge the government to consider the immediate establishment of a capital assistance fund agency to work in cooperation and conjunction with this proposed Atlantic development board. It is said that Mrs. Marx observed at the end of a long and rather bleak life, "How much better it would have been if dear Karl had made some capital instead of writing and speaking about it". I wish to say to this government now, on the eve of its last days in office, how much better it would be for them if they were prepared to provide the Atlantic economy with proper capital instead of more boards, more commissions, more promises and more words.


Mr. Bell (Saini John-Albert):: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member a question?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Certainly.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the hon. member tell the house why the Liberals did nothing for the maritimes during their 22 years of administration?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I think this is the type of question we may expect from the hon. member.
Mr>
Bel1 (Saint John-Albert): Well, answer


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Any projects of major importance which have been completed in the Atlantic provinces have been completed by a Liberal government.


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member says, "Name one". I will name camp Gagetown, which I would say can be compared to any major industries in New Brunswick. I would mention the Canso causeway. Also, the few crown corporations which we now have in the Atlantic provinces were instituted by a Liberal administration, and nothing of the kind has been done since 1957.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, it a real privilege for me as a westerner to associate myself this afternoon with the people who live in the Atlantic area of our great country. As I have come to know many of them as my personal friends and to know that part of the country almost as well as I know the other parts of Canada, I have come to have a deep feeling of affection and appreciation for the maritime people from our four Atlantic provinces. One of the great heritages

Atlantic Development Board we have in Canada is the contribution which emigrants from that area have made to other parts of Canada. It has been said more than once that the greatest export from the Atlantic provinces has been their trained, professional and technical people. I am sure that each one of us, regardless of what part of Canada we come from, can readily recognize the truth of that statement as we recall friends and acquaintances who came originally from that area.
On behalf of all of us in our corner of the house, Mr. Chairman, I count it a pleasure to associate myself with the debate that is now beginning in connection with the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister of National Revenue. I trust, however, that the Atlantic development board will not be just another board. If boards were the answer to our economic ills, then I am sure Canada would today be well on the road to prosperity. We have many now and we are getting more week by week. Let us remember that the setting up of an agency, by whatever name it might be called or for whatever purposes may be defined, is not just the answer to our problems. We have learned through the eloquent words of the minister this afternoon, the purposes and objectives of this Atlantic development board. We all agree that the words he has spoken are well chosen, because they are true. But they will only be effective if they can be put into action. I am fearful of the multiplicity of boards as we try to deal with the problem of planning that our country needs in a way that will benefit the country according to its basic objectives and traditions.
We have heard described already this afternoon the work and function of the board known as APEC, the Atlantic provinces economic council. It has done good work. I am personally familiar with a number of people on the board and realize that they have covered a great deal of ground in surveying the needs of the Atlantic provinces. We have also discussed, and are still in the process of discussing, the national economic development board. We also have the national productivity council. One wonders just how effective are the operations of these different agencies as they relate to the results that are wanted without a serious overlapping and multiplicity of function and even of purpose.
I think this is one of the things about which we must be very careful, and I trust that the government has taken this question into careful consideration. I say this because what is expected at this time-I am sure that every person who lives in the Atlantic area will be thinking thus when he hears the announcement of this new board-is action, effective action that will lift the Atlantic area out of

what has been termed a depressed area into what can be one of the strongest emerging areas in the country. As I have come to know the maritimes, I have come to almost abhor the word "welfare" as it has been applied, because the truth is-and I think all Canadians, if they were intimately familiar with this part of our country, would understand this-that the Atlantic provinces are potentially the richest and most prosperous in the whole of Canada. They are not entitled to and should not be given such descriptive terms such as "depressed".
If one looks, not at the problems of the Atlantic area but at its resources, he realizes they are truly amazing. Prince Edward Island is one of the richest farm areas in Canada. Nova Scotia has tremendous reserves of coal. It has excellent possibilities as far as communications and shipping are concerned. Certainly it has a tremendous fishing industry. New Brunswick is not only the centre of a new base metals mining industry, it is also a major source of lumber in the east. In addition, together with Nova Scotia, it is a site of some of our leading universities, an asset without price in an age when we should be moving forward into the greatest era of development and progress that the history of Canada has ever known. Newfoundland and Labrador have immense undeveloped sources of hydroelectric power. There are also vast lumber and mining potentials. This is all without mentioning the possibilities of developing this entire area for tourism, which is one of the great and for the most part undeveloped assets of this beautiful part of Canada.
The minister this afternoon went over a number of the things which he envisages the Atlantic development board as being concerned with. He mentioned the Chignecto canal, the Prince Edward Island causeway, the manganese deposits, the marble and base metals, in addition to existing resources such as coal. He mentioned the hydro potential on the upper Saint John river. Although he did not refer to it, I am sure he was thinking also of the Fundy hydro development potential. He spoke of a needed power grid. All this concerns only a portion of the rich resources of this part of the country. It is these things which, we have been told, will be the subject of the board's attention. Looking at what has been happening in the maritimes I sometimes smile at the jibing which takes place back and forth between the two larger parties in this house. I do not know whether this is a game of chess or a football game; maybe it is the Grey cup in the fog. But I do know that which has been done either by a former Liberal government or by past Conservative

governments is not the answer. I am quoting from the January issue this year of the Atlantic Advocate:
The Atlantic region has been a drag on the economy of Canada by being low in production and high in unemployment, twice as high as the rest of Canada in terms of unemployment as a percentage of the labour force.
The region has been aided and subsidized by an ever-increasing amount by the government of Canada, to enable its people just to live, to keep from starving. The region has cost Canada something between $130 million and $200 million a year in aids and subsidies to enable its people to survive. All of every payment is gone by the end of every year. Nothing is left. In the next year the aids are continued, and so on, ad infinitum.
Unfortunately, this is all too true of what has been the background results of events in the Atlantic area. It need not be so; it should not be so. The minister has mentioned that the Atlantic development board is to be concerned both in an active and a passive way. He said also that it is to be concerned with both the private and the public sectors of the economy. I would remind him, and I would remind the government to which he belongs, that as he contemplates the work of the Atlantic development board much of what he has been speaking about has already been done by APEC and by other agencies in that region. As it is described to be an arm of government I can see in it a board which could produce action and produce it quickly if instead of going through the same pattern which has been followed in the past number of years it could take the findings of those various organizations which already exist, bring them together and then, devise machinery which would facilitate the action which is obviously needed. This board could produce action and it could produce action very quickly. As I envisage it I can see that it could be capable of making the Atlantic area the emerging part of Canada.
We are wrong when we consider that any part of Canada is an entity in itself. It is only as we can see Canada as the great nation it is, when no part is separated from another part, that true development is possible. We talk about the possibility of maintaining an ice free river as far as Montreal for 12 months of the year and immediately we are concerned about what effect this might have upon the shipping facilities in Saint John or Halifax. We hear criticism of the Chignecto canal because, it is said, it would hurt harbour commerce in other parts of that area. It is well that we remember always: you cannot separate one part of the country from another. What is good for one will be good for the other. What is good for the Atlantic provinces will be good for Upper Canada, and what is good for Upper Canada will be good for western Canada. It is on this
Atlantic Development Board basis that the board could produce the results we are thinking of, provided the government puts teeth into the thing. This is a matter on which we expect to have more to say as the debate goes on and about which we shall be in a position to say more when we are informed in greater detail, as I trust we shall be, about the functions of the board.
I say that the purpose of this board is not only one of correlation and bringing together. It must be a board capable of initiating action itself. The minister has told us there is no substitute for initiative and subsequent action. Referring briefly to the honourable gentleman's statement that the board is to be concerned with Atlantic development both with regard to public and private projects on this basis, I should like to draw the attention of the committee briefly to what I regard as the responsibility of government toward public and private projects. As far as I am concerned, both our older parties in Canada have been far too much concerned, through an urgency which can only be described as being expedient, with things which rightfully do not belong to the responsibility of government. The hon. member for Gloucester who spoke just before me mentioned that if we are to produce the action and the results which are expected, active participation in the supply of capital is necessary. Let us remember, however, that there are two basic kinds of capital as applied to what we are thinking of now. Private capital is the capital which industry and commerce need to build up the industry and commerce of the area where this capital is used. This capital should not come out of welfare handouts by governments but from the savings and investment of our own people.
I am positive that if we can operate universities and carry on as we have carried on in that area through the years the need of the Atlantic provinces at this time is not interference with private or commercial capital; what is needed is the setting of an atmosphere and a climate which would make the area fully receptive to commercial, productive capital. We hear a good deal of talk to the effect that only the United States or other countries outside Canada can supply the capital we need. That is simply not true. We have plenty of capital in Canada ready for use if only the climate and the conditions which would encourage Canadians to invest their capital were present. In this regard, if teeth are going to be put into this project, I believe it must be basically concerned not with the payment of more welfare nor with the supplying of private or productive capital which ought to come from the Canadian

Atlantic Development Board citizens themselves. I believe the government should be concerned with the public responsibility of the government.
If it could do this, then I could see some hope of the Atlantic area becoming the emerging area of Canada. As I have just quoted from the Atlantic Advocate, we find that for a number of years both the Liberal and the Conservative governments have spent something like $150 million to $200 million per year in welfare. At the end of each year that sum has disappeared and the following year the same amount of money has to be supplied again just to keep people living and the area alive. If this amount of money had been spent out of public capital to set the climate and conditions for private industry in that area, we would not have to be paying this amount of welfare subsidies today. The figure of $1 billion for the next 10 years has been mentioned. That is $100 million a year. If $200 million, which is not more than we are spending at the present time, could be supplied in the right way for the next five years, I am convinced that the Atlantic area would not need any more welfare or subsidizing, as it would be able to carry itself in a respectable way, as should any individual, group of individuals or any area of the country should. That is why I believe it is very important that we look at our true responsibilities, rather than to confuse the issue and think that we are helping by actually bringing about a policy which is just encouraging a continuation of that which we agree we do not want and is not correct.
I am convinced that one of the greatest needs in the area is the public aspect of the economy. I should like to quote again from the Atlantic Advocate of January, 1962. I believe these words are well taken, and I agree with them:
Industry can be attracted to the region if certain prerequisites are provided. The Chignecto canal and the tidal power development of Chignecto bay are two public works projects that are essential prerequisites to industrial development. These projects could transform transportation through the development of coastal shipping and provide abundant electric power at a cost competitive with any now prevailing in any area of Canada. These assets, together with our winter ports, would make the region an ideal production area for processing not only our own plentiful resources but imported commodities also for re-export to world markets.
The cost of the capital investment in these public works projects bears no relation to any need for retrenchment resulting from Canada's present foreign exchange difficulties. Investment in capital projects which will themselves be productive has no relation or likeness to spending for non-productive purposes. It is not inflationary. Anyway, there is no inflation in the maritimes; there is every evidence of deflation. What is required is a positive program of self-liquidating public works projects and a captal budget financed out of loans.


I could not have stated the needs of this area better if I had tried to do it myself. Here again is evidence that there has been tremendous thought and research put into the very thing which it has been stated is the function of this board.
I suggest to the government that if it really wants to do something for the maritimes and do it in a way which would permanently correct the problems that area faces, then instead of providing welfare capital they should set up a municipal development bank which could supply the public capital needed for public projects, remembering that these public projects are non-profit-making and self-liquidating. They are there to render a service, to set the stage for basic and secondary industries conducted on a private basis. Supposing that we did have a municipal development bank set up on such a basis, providing not $100 million a year but $200 million a year, which as I have said is no more than the subsidies now being paid to the area. Supposing it was to continue this program for five years. This capital would develop the Chignecto canal, if the Chignecto canal is scientifically and technically feasible, as I believe it is. A Montreal turnpike could be constructed so as to facilitate communications with upper Canada. Yes, power projects could be facilitated likewise in the area. I am thinking of the upper Saint John river and also the Fundy tidal system, which is also centred on the Chignecto canal. If research could also be financed in this way so as to conduct the necessary studies as to how the various resources which are there now could be used in a more efficient way, then our markets could be expanded.
For example, I often think of the coal industry about which we have heard so much these last few days in this chamber. The coal research board set up in the province of Alberta has done more to revive the coal industry in Alberta than anything else, so much so that the value of the coal industry in the province last year exceeded anything the industry had produced since immediately following the war. This is the kind of assistance which will help the coal industry. I am sure that when the minister speaks of the need for a power grid, he will realize the assistance required for making this possible, in order to encourage secondary industry is one of the legitimate ways that this kind of capital could positively contribute.
We have heard a great deal during the session about the trans-Canada highway, and we speak of it as though it were finished. In the maritimes it is not finished; a tremendous amount of work has yet to be done. Here is a project which needs to be finished immediately, and finished completely. Again

that is legitimate expenditure of public capital, non-profit capital, there to render a service and to facilitate the development of the kind of industry that private and productive capital has as its responsibility to provide. This is the kind of help that the maritime provinces need.
In addition, I should like to say this to the minister. He has spoken about the program envisaged for the Atlantic development board. Unless the government backs up whatever is done by that board with a basic change in some of its policies which will give support to it, then the board will fail. I am thinking of the transportation problems which concern this area at the present time. As far as public capital is concerned, again I think there is a need for improving harbour facilities. What about some of our basic trade policies? In addition to the requirements for public capital in the Atlantic area, I believe one of the greatest needs is the development of markets. This part of Canada is closer to overseas markets than other parts of Canada, and certainly the maritimes area has a large internal market as well. Our trade policies must be brought into line with the conditions we face at the present time if we are to get out of the economic problems which face us. But days go by; days are followed by weeks, and in turn grow into months and then years. Yet we do not face the reality of conditions as they are. The tremendous markets which are available to the Atlantic area are right here in our own hemisphere, if we want to consider them as such.
I realize that a lot has been done in the Atlantic provinces for the potato industry by reaching out to South America for new markets. That is just an example of what can be done. If we are going to facilitate the freest possible exchange of goods between nations, then not only do our trade policies have to be gone over, but we must also meet the problem of international settlements. We cannot expect the problem which precipitated the crisis in June as far as balance of payments is concerned to be corrected unless we get down to some of the basic flaws which caused it in the first place. Here is where the government will have to back up action, such as that we have talked about today, with a change in some of its present policies, and certainly give greater leadership and more evidence that it is able to cope with these problems in an effective way.
Not only do we have a responsibility to back this particular project with a different look at trade, but also we must solve our tax problem. We are told blithely that we have another royal commission on taxes. Because we have a royal commission on taxes we
Atlantic Development Board think that all of our tax reform problems are being taken care of. I do not wish to be repetitious, but again hammering on this point may I say this. We cannot wait for one or two years for a royal commission on taxation before we initiate some of the tax reforms which the Atlantic area must have if industry is going to develop. It is the responsibility of the government to do this and to do it quickly.
We hear so much about royal commissions and about reports that it has been somewhat gratifying to observe that there is evidence of immediate action being taken on the Glassco report. However, we still have gathering dust in some pigeon hole many royal commission reports that have not been acted on. In spite of this we are in general agreement that many of the recommendations are good or that at least they contain some of the basic elements of action that it is necessary to take. I am thinking right now of the O'Leary commission report. Last spring Canadians were told that action was going to be taken. Nothing has happened. The throne speech again stated this was going to be done. Nothing has happened. Why cannot the government come out with these obvious things that our Canadian economy urgently needs?
The government must realize that, in regard to this particular development board, unless they do this very thing they are going to nullify any positive effects that could come from it.
I do not wish to prolong the debate today, as we are but discussing the resolution that will bring this legislation to pass. There will be an opportunity for this as the debate goes on. However, I would just remind the committee of this point. This is a house of minorities and that we have a corporate responsibility to the over-all picture to get behind a piece of legislation like this. I particularly urge on the government that unless they do share in this responsibility, they are failing their own responsibilities at the present time. To support the suggestion that we all agree to is good. Indeed it is basic, in order to facilitate some positive action that will bring about the reversal of conditions which we have today and which we recognize are not to the betterment of our country in order that we can begin to move forward as this country ought to be able to do and can do.
Just to recapitulate a little, I would say again that the greatest need of this Atlantic area if for public capital that will bring to pass those particular public development projects which are necessary and which will assist in laying the climate and clarifying a situation that will attract our own capital in order that this country can go forward and that this area will not remain the depressed area, not the area which is the recipient of
2300	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board charitable welfare from the rest of Canada but the area which can and will lead the economic recovery our nation needs as it goes forward to fulfil our obligations not only to ourselves but to the generations which are to come after us.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to make a prolonged speech this afternoon. I have already been very fortunate in having the opportunity to speak on two other occasions with regard to the problems of the Atlantic provinces of Canada. It is very encouraging this afternoon to find from all corners of the chamber some very desirable and in my opinion very objective and worth-while suggestions being brought before the members of this committee.
There is no question at all about the desirability of such a move. As the minister indicated in his opening remarks, this is at least recognition of the problem that has existed in the Atlantic provinces over the years. It is a first step. We are all highly appreciative of the move. Nevertheless this is the first process in adopting legislation with regard to these problems and I feel that it is the responsibility of each of us who are vitally concerned with the matter to make some observations with regard to the resolution with a view to the bill which will be presented to us eventually. I think that this is good procedure. I expect that the minister and the other members of the government will be sufficiently broadminded and objective to perhaps bear in mind and keep in the forefront of their consideration certain of the proposals that will come out during this discussion.
I should like to point out first of all that it is very encouraging to hear the minister review the conditions which have existed in the Atlantic provinces over the years and to a more serious degree in recent years. It is not very long ago, just last June and last spring, when we had ministers of the crown, responsible members of the government of the day, coming to our area and telling us that really our problems were not too bad, that conditions were not as we were suggesting they were. I therefore think this is a good step, recognizing that we have a problem, and as opposed to the statements of the hon. member for Red Deer. I agree with him however that we do not like to talk in terms of a depressed area. 1 agree with him that we have resources in the Atlantic provinces. We have tremendous resources. None of us, in my opinion, would go so far as to suggest, as did the then minister of national revenue, now the Minister of Finance, that we are going to develop another Toronto in the area. I do not know


that we want another Toronto. I say that with all due respect for certain members of my own group. We agree that we have these resources, but at the same time we are obliged to recognize the fact that it has been a depressed area. This becomes clear when you experience unemployment rates which are double the national average; when you experience thousands of people on relief and receiving welfare services; when you experience, without going into detail the trends in employment in particular industries in the manufacturing field where between 1952 and January 1962 our work force was reduced from 33,000 to 24,000; where employment in the coal industry has been reduced from 11,000 miners to 5,700 and in primary iron and steel from 5,300 to 2,800. If you examine unemployment trends in this area in relation to those in any other area in Canada or in all of Canada; if you examine the comparative wage and salary structure; if you examine the construction rates per hour in relation to those in other industrial areas; if you examine average hourly industrial earnings; if you examine net incomes of farm operators- and I could go on and on with taxation figures and what have you-the story is the same. This has been a depressed area. Conditions have been serious. The time has arrived for due attention and due action.
The hon. member for Gloucester during the course of his speech suggested, it seemed to me, that the field of activity for this board is unlimited. At least this is what I understood from his remarks. Again I think we must disagree with this particular view. It is true that there are many things that we would expect such a board and the federal government to accomplish in this area, but surely their field is not unlimited. We have many problems in the Atlantic provinces. The government of the day or the government of the previous day is not responsible for all of them and cannot be expected to solve all of them. I think where their greater responsibility lies is not in that they brought about the problems but in that they have refused to face the challenge that these problems have presented. In other words, what we might criticize them for is not so much the fact that the problems exist but rather the fact that they have failed to take effective action to deal with them.
So I suggest that the federal government, through the Atlantic development board or any other agency, cannot be expected to solve all our problems. Even if they could solve all of the problems that we face in this area, I suggest this would not be a desirable course of action. We in this region still have some pride. There are some things we want to do

for ourselves, and despite most difficult conditions in recent years we have continued to attempt to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps. I do not have to give evidence of this fact. I do not have to refute the argument that our people have a defeatist attitude, that they are pessimists, that they are lazy and will not do anything for themselves, that they do not want to work and want to live off the federal government. All we have to do is to look at the history of these provinces, to look at the self-help efforts of these people in the field of co-operative activity, in the field of credit unions, in the field of marketing efforts on the part of our farmers and our fishermen. These are stories of courage, stories, in particular sections of the area, of people lifting themselves up by the bootstraps.
But the major consideration is that we cannot be expected to solve all of our problems by ourselves. This is an established scientific fact arrived at by various organizations and groups in our own region and in other parts of the country, and that is why we expect such types of assistance as we hope will be provided through the Atlantic development board.
One of our major concerns and fears with regard to this proposed board, and we will be looking at the legislation when it is placed before us, is that this is simply going to be another board to study, another royal commission. We have had quite a bit of experience in the Atlantic area and all across Canada with royal commissions and they have their role to play. Many of them have provided very valuable services to the country. But we are familiar with the Rowell-Sirois commission so far as some of our problems are concerned, and what has happened in recent years. This government which tells us that Nova Scotia has never had a friend like the Prime Minister


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: -this government which tells us that the Tories have done more for us than anybody else-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: It is very desirable that you applaud yourselves, because nobody else will. This government has refuted the recommendations of this particular royal commission and has recently changed the formula, for which we can give some credit to the former Liberal government, from equalization and rationalization in our tax rental and tax sharing agreements across the country. As a result the assistance that we are provided today in this area under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act is no longer based
Atlantic Development Board on the yield of the two richest provinces but rather is on the basis of a national average.
I asked the Minister of Finance a question in this regard the other evening and he stood up and very quickly brushed it aside and told me it was very strange that, though I came from the province of Nova Scotia, I was not prepared to admit that the present basis is the best arrangement we have ever had. I prefer to accept what I would regard as a more objective analysis with regard to this problem. I should like to quote from an exhaustive study of federal-provincial fiscal relations prepared by Dr. John F. Graham of Dalhousie University. With regard to our new system of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements I quote the following:
The new federal-provincial fiscal arrangements for the period 1962-67 are the outcome of a unilateral decision of the federal government rather than of mutual agreement between the federal government and the provinces. They alter the equalization and stabilization elements of the previous arrangements and they constitute an abrupt change with respect to the centralization of control and uniformity of rates of the three direct taxes. They introduced a marked departure from the trend toward greater rationalization of the Canadian fiscal system that had hitherto characterized the war and post-war agreements.


Hugh John Flemming: How
many more millions did they give Nova Scotia?


Donald MacInnis: I will reach that in a moment, if the minister will hold on.
The new policy is obviously intended to shift back to the provinces the responsibility for levying their own personal and corporate income taxes at a time of acute need of the provinces for larger revenues and of large federal deficits.
The minister asked me how much the federal government is providing under the new arrangements.


Hugh John Flemming: More.


Donald MacInnis: Once again I will not attempt to be politically partisan. I will read from an objective report, and again I quote Professor Graham:
Even with its relatively large federal transfers, Nova Scotia had a combined provincial and municipal net general revenue per capita of only 79 per cent of that of all the provinces for the fiscal year 1960-61. Moreover, it was only 69 per cent of the average for Ontario and British Columbia, the two richest provinces.
I would particularly draw the remainder of this excerpt to the attention of the minister and other members of the government.
It would require about $44 million of additional revenue to bring the amount for Nova Scotia up to the national average, and about $53 million to bring it up to the average for Ontario and British Columbia.

Atlantic Development Board


Hugh John Flemming: That is not what I asked. Why do you not answer my question? Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member how many more millions of dollars Nova Scotia is getting. I submit the answer is about $5 million more.


Donald MacInnis: I agree with the minister but, as I have indicated, when this particular agreement was reached there was an attempt to hide the fact that a change or variation had taken place in a very important trend, and as soon as the provisions of the present agreement reach their limit we will begin again gradually to drop behind. The fact remains that we require today an additional $44 million to bring us up to the national average.
Mr. Chairman, we are concerned that this board may do nothing for our area but provide additional study and additional research. Regardless of the tremendous success and the very concrete proposals of the Atlantic provinces economic council, the maritime transportation commission, St. Francis Xavier's extension department, which organization has been working in this field for many years, the many independent economists in our universities and the various conferences, assemblies and meetings of associations that we have had, we are fearful that responsibility on the part of the government is going to be placed with this particular board and that we are going to procrastinate and delay action, not in fields that require additional research- I agree with the minister there-but in fields where action can take place today.
So far as transportation is concerned, we have the MacPherson royal commission which has reached certain findings, and we have the presentations of the maritime transportation commission. We know what has to be done with regard to that problem. We know the history and the purposes of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. We do not need an Atlantic development board to tell us what to do in this field.
I suggest that we can take action in the general field of taxation. A few moments ago the hon. member for Red Deer, with some degree of confusion because I found many of his statements conflicting, suggested that we do not want to continue to pour out thousands and millions of dollars by way of welfare and special taxation assistance, and what have you. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the only way we can stand on our own feet is by developing a viable, stable economic base and there is no hope of accomplishing this without temporary and intermediate programs of assistance from the federal government on a long range basis. If we can get this assistance today, and if this assistance is provided on the basis of a logical plan, then I suggest that there will come a day when

we in the Atlantic provinces can once again make a real contribution to this nation, when we can stand on our own feet. This is what we want. This is the condition toward which we are working. It is in the interests not only of our people in the Atlantic provinces; it is in the interests of the nation.
There are fields of action, Mr. Chairman, in which we can expect action on the part of the federal government through the Atlantic development board today. They do not have to wait for additional research and study through the proposed Atlantic development board. We were hoping that this was simply not another royal commission by means of which the government would attempt to slough off its responsibility and postpone the evil day when they were finally forced, by public opinion, to make the changes needed. We are familiar with the Rowell-Sirois commission. More recently, we have become familiar with the Rand commission which was to study and inquire into the development of long range policies in respect of the coal industry. Where is the report? Where are the policies? Where is the long range program? How long are we going to have to wait for this one? We have had royal commission after royal commission; we have had study after study. We require additional studies, yes, but we require action today.
One of the areas for example, Mr. Chairman, in which the federal government, through the proposed Atlantic development board, might profit by some research would be the field of the implementation of freer trade policies in the Atlantic region of Canada. I think we would all have to admit that since 1867 all of our tariff negotiations have been conducted with a view to the development of a nation with a central core of strong industrial development. Well, I suggest that the time is ripe for giving special consideration to the Atlantic provinces of Canada in future tariff negotiations. One could call to mind such possibilities as exist in the steel industry in the Atlantic provinces. Under a system of freer trade, one could think with tremendous optimism of the potential that exists, for example, in the presently seriously depressed Trenton-Pictou area of Nova Scotia. If we could arrange, on a free trade basis with the United States, to transport some of our cars and axles into this part of the United States we could develop one of the biggest industries in this nation.
This is one of those fields in which the European economic community and the United States produce 80 per cent of the materials, and therefore would be eligible for a complete reduction of the tariff. Then, it would be possible for us to export some basic steel and some structural steel. These are the

types of things that I feel are more related to a long range program than to additional research and study. There are things that could be attended to immediately, and I hope the government is not going to ignore them.
One of the fears that we have in respect of the proposed Atlantic development board is the question of finances. It has already been brought out by several of the speakers -I am not going to repeat it, I simply want to call attention to the fact-that we cannot solve the problems of this area in this or that particular section of the economy. It must be a co-ordinated plan of development with action taking place in both the public and private sectors of the economy. This means you must have funds to stimulate economic activity. This means you must have funds with which to generate enthusiasm and optimism on the part of certain investment segments of our country. This means the federal government is going to have to take the lead and provide some real and worth-while amounts of money and pump them into this part of Canada with a view to developing the resources of this area.
I want to say one word, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the attitude that was expressed by the hon. member for Red Deer. I do not have his exact words, but he said something about not preoccupying ourselves with more systems and suggestions of welfare, and particularly federal government handouts. I agree with him that this is not the objective, this is not a desirable thing so far as a program for the economic development of our area is concerned. However, I would ask him to study some of the other reports that have come out of the Atlantic provinces, to study all the statements that have been made by representatives of existing industries in the area, the steel industry and others. I think you will have to agree that it is an established fact that in order to attract new industry into an area you have to be able to provide the same level of essential services to the children of the people who are going to be brought in to run these companies, the management people and so on.
It is essential that we in Nova Scotia be able to provide our people with the same level of educational facilities as they have in Ontario or British Columbia. This applies as well to the field of hospital facilities, roads and other things. The hon. member for Red Deer is shaking his head, but this is the impression he gave. We cannot do this at the moment because we do not have the same tax base and this would mean we would have to have higher taxes. You are not going to attract any industry into your area if it is going to pay taxes that will not allow it to exist and sell its products on a competitive
Private Bills
basis. There is only one answer, one way to circumvent that position and that is through a temporary plan of government assistance that will enable us, sooner or later, to stand on our own feet and to attract new industries that can compete.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order; it being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to a consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-14, respecting Merit Insurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which we have received, of course, from the Senate. The purpose is very simple. The sole purpose of the bill is to add a French version to the name of Merit Insurance Company so that the title in French would read Merite, Com-pagnie d'Assurance.
(Translation):


Mr. David Ouellel (Drummond-Arthabaska):: Mr. Speaker, the Merit Insurance Company, which operates mainly in the province of Quebec, is a very good and very important company. I feel that the house should give its immediate support to this measure so that this insurance company may have a French as well as an English name. I must congratulate the company for taking a French name, as unfortunately many companies forget to do so. I think it is a noble attitude on the part of the company.
In my name and on behalf of our group, f congratulate that firm for having thought of this change.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-7, to incorporate the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada-Mr. Legere (for Mr. Morris) - Mr. Paul in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Maiher:: Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to say that we have no quarrel with this clause or indeed with the bill. We have examined it in committee and are convinced that it is simply standard procedure to have this type

Divorce Bills
of clause in the bill in order to establish more power and efficiency for the church concerned and its officers. The church seeks to carry on its spiritual, educational and, as they say, temporal work in a better and more organized way. We are in agreement with that principle as it is expressed in this clause and in the bill itself. There happens to be one of the agencies of this organization near the area I represent, and I can tell the committee that its work does harm to none, and I think does benefit to those of its particular faith. Beyond that, the school in question has a very good football team. Therefore we are very much in favour of this legislation.


Rémi Paul: Shall clause 1
carry?
(Translation) :


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to rise and urge the hon. members of this house to let this bill go through with no further discussion.
This concerns a new congregation dedicated to the training and the education of our young orphans and to the education of those who wish to improve their knowledge.
If we had more congregations of this kind to look after our youth, we would not be faced with all our present problems now.
There is a lack of leaders because the basis is missing. And this bill offers a way to assist that congregation by incorporating them.
(Text) :


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 16 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette) moved: the second reading of Bill No. SD-12, for the relief of Alethea Sarah Ivy Fowler.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us-for which I have the printed copy of the evidence that was taken before the committee of the Senate which deals with these matters-seeks, as is indicated in the preamble, to dissolve a particular marriage, based upon certain facts as alleged in a petition and certain evidence as given before the committee to support the facts contained therein. I think that inasmuch as this bill seeks the dissolution of a marriage we should inquire as to whether there is a marriage to be dissolved, because this perhaps is not always felt to be necessary.

One of the paragraphs of the petition, as is indicated in the preamble, alleges a particular fact, namely that a marriage did take place between the two people concerned, that it was by licence duly obtained, and the marriage was celebrated by the Reverend J. R. Graham, at the manse of St. Andrew Presbyterian church in the city of Sherbrooke, in the district of St. Francis. In the hearing before the Senate committee the petitioner was placed under oath and asked certain questions with respect to the marriage. A document was filed. I do not have it in my possession, but it is undoubtedly in the possession of the holder of all the official information with respect to this case. That document was a marriage certificate. I doubt whether it is necessary for us to actually obtain that particular document to see whether in fact it is a certificate, because it was identified by the witness under oath and produced to the committee of the other place. When the petitioner was before the committee as a witness on her own behalf, the clerk of the committee asked her certain specific questions with respect to this allegation of marriage. He asked as follows-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member has fully considered the import of citations 482 and 483 which I drew to his attention the other day with regard to these matters? I am wondering whether what he is doing now is merely to call into question certain parts of the evidence, or certain facts which may be a little different from those he was discussing the other day, at which time I drew his attention to those particular citations.
I would again indicate to the hon. member that the house does not profess to decide on second reading as to the truth or otherwise of the questions of fact involved. If I may remind the hon. member of the words in citation 483 of Beauchesne's fourth edition-
-In conceding a second reading for a private bill, the house is regarded as merely giving its sanction to its general principle on the hypothesis that the committee to which it is afterwards referred finds those allegations proved. It is usual, therefore, to allow the second reading except where the bill enunciates some principle which the house is not prepared to affirm.
For that reason I do not feel it is proper to go into the question of whether the marriage was proved or whether adultery was proved, or those matters which are allegations of fact. In the same manner one might say different witnesses never appeared before the committee of the other house. I would respectfully suggest to the hon. member that we are discussing the principle of the bill, not the allegations on which it is founded and that those allegations are matters for the

consideration of the special committee of this house to investigate and report back for further consideration.


Frank Howard: Following your comments on a previous occasion, Mr. Speaker, I did look at the citations to which you referred. I also looked at what you allowed me to say on November 15 with respect to Bill No. SD-1 for the relief of Madeleine Francoise Han-kowski. That was on second reading, incidentally the same stage which this particular bill has reached. I myself, with Your Honour in the chair, recited verbatim from the evidence adduced, the questions asked and the answers given, as will be found on pages 1671 and 1672 of Hansard. There are six questions and six answers in number, all of which revolve around the question of the marriage and the evidence given in the other place to prove there was a marriage. I made reference to this on other occasions, too, and I assumed therefore that it was permissible to proceed in that direction and in that direction only-to consider whether or not there was a marriage which we were being asked to dissolve.
I think perhaps at this stage a lengthy recitation or reference in detail to the evidence taken in the other place as to whether there was or was not adultery might have doubtful validity because of the citations to which Your Honour referred, and we therefore refrained from making such references in detail. I, myself, refrained from discussing that particular aspect of the question. We are being asked now, I think, to follow two different courses, one which applied on November 15, when you yourself were in the chair, and the other which apparently is to apply now. This makes it awkward for hon. members who are concerned with these particular bills to discuss them from the point of view we have in mind, if there are to be different attitudes taken by the Chair in relation to precisely the same thing. I hope this is not the case, but it does leave me and, I am sure, other hon. members, in a quandary as to what the rules mean. I would appreciate some guidance from you before we proceed as to just what is the principle of the bill, if that is all we are intended to discuss.


Mr. Speaker:: In so far as the question of what may be discussed at this time is concerned, I think it is clear that there is before us a bill which proposes that the marriage on a certain date between certain parties should be dissolved, as indicated in the preamble. That is the principle of the bill. If the hon. member can show me the difference between going into considerable detail as to whether there ever was a marriage, by looking at the
Divorce Bills
evidence, and whether there was any adultery, by going to the evidence, I should be glad to hear him, but I have some difficulty in distinguishing them. Certainly, the question of proof of either of these things is not, I submit, for the consideration of the house at this stage. They will be, ultimately, through the committee; but not on second reading. If the principle of this bill that this marriage be dissolved does not meet with the approval of the house, then the thing is to vote on that point so as to decide one way or another, in this particular instance without reference to the evidence behind it, but bearing in mind what is the difference between a private and a public bill on second reading.


Frank Howard: Apparently, then, Mr. Speaker, both you and I were wrong on November 15 when I was permitted-in fact, I thought latterly or subsequently, invited-to look at the evidence to discover whether certain things were worth while mentioning. I do not want to enter into discussion with Your Honour. Of course, that is not the thing to do, nor is this the place to do it. But if the principle of the bill is the dissolution of a marriage and if, as Beauchesne says, the house finds that that principle is objectionable, refusing its consent to second reading, and so on, it seems a little odd that the house should be asked to assent or disagree with the principle of a bill without having before it any explanation at all.
With regard to other bills, such as the bill we have just passed respecting the Merit Insurance Company, the sponsor got up and explained what was the principle of the bill. There was no objection to his doing this. We have heard lengthy introductory remarks made in connection with other private bills- remarks indicating the effect the bill would have and what was going to happen if it passed and what was not going to happen, and so on. There has been lengthy argument and discussion on second reading. A notable example is the bill concerning the Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada which we discussed at the last hour available for the consideration of private bills. A lengthy explanation was given by the sponsor of that measure as to its principles, the desires of the people behind it and so on. Yet when we get to these particular bills on divorce we are being asked to consider them without discussion and without reference to what may or not be the facts-that is, if Your Honour's earlier invitation to look at the evidence does not mean anything, to guess whether or not the principle is acceptable.
It seems extremely unfair to put the house in such a position, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that if we had to vote on each bill without

Divorce Bills
a great deal of reference to it, then there would be no alternative but to ask hon. members to vote blindly yes or no. We would be asking them to do that without any indication of what the principle of the bill is, other than saying that the principle is to dissolve a marriage. I am not going to go into the other question whether or not the reasons for the dissolution are correct ones, but it does seem an extremely awkward position in which to place hon. members. Mr. Speaker, I cannot go any further, except once again to say that by following this course of adhering strictly to your reasoning and ruling places us in no other position than to vote blindly yes or no on each bill.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I was in the house on the November 15 when discussions took place about this matter. As I understood the proposition at that time, you attempted to indicate what the principle of the bill was, namely the relief to be provided to such-and-such a person, consisting of the dissolution of their marriage. I think the suggestion was made, or so I understood from the comments both of yourself and the hon. member, that one might look at the evidence taken in the other place in order to obtain information on the question whether or not there had been a marriage. If there had not been a marriage, of course there could be no relief granted; but I do not think it was ever suggested, and I certainly did not get this impression, that we should survey the sufficiency of the evidence and examine whether there was adequate evidence for the purpose. If the evidence taken in the other place was plainly and specifically directed to establishing that there was no marriage, then I think any hon. member could say that he objected and intended to vote against the principle of the bill, because there was no marriage and no relief to be given.
That is an altogether different position from suggesting, as does the hon. member for Skeena, that this gives him or any other hon. member the right carte blanche, to examine piece by piece and item by item the evidence taken before the committee of the other place so that in considering the principle of the bill on second reading, we could decide whether or not relief should be granted on the evidence taken before the divorce committee of the other place. If there was no evidence at all to establish the marriage, then I think that is adequate evidence on which to say that we are opposed to the bill; but we should not go into the sufficiency of the evidence, which is a different matter.


Mr. Crestohl:: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who is opposing second reading of the bill, having based himself on some examples

he gave to the house, is confusing two things. When we have before the house a bill to change the name of a company-Allstate or any other-that is one matter. But these bills have all been before another committee. That committee has heard all the evidence. It has gone into all the proof which is available to this House of Commons, and the bills are now before us with all that evidence accepted and approved.
Mr. Speaker, I think on the date that the hon. member referred to I raised this question on a point of order, and Your Honour ruled upon it. Because you were generous enough to allow the hon. member to proceed a certain distance and ask certain questions or read certain evidence, I do not think it sets a binding precedent. We raised an objection then and you ruled upon it. We respectfully submit that what the hon. member is trying to do now is something altogether different from the examples he gave in dealing with an insurance company. These bills are before the house complete in all detail, and you are right, Mr. Speaker, when you say that all we can do now is to deal with the principle whether there should be an annulment or a dissolution of the marriage or whether there should not. As you have cited quite properly, I do not think we are in a position to go into all the evidence, as the hon. member suggests. If he wants to go into all the evidence for the sake of giving this house a lot of information it really does not need, and which it already has anyway in print, then I think he is completely out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed, as I nearly always am, by what was said by the hon. member for Peace River. It seems to me that the point that the hon. gentleman made could very well be illustrated by this bill concerning the Merit Insurance Company. When we were discussing that matter I noticed that the hon. member for Skeena did not get up and ask whether there was a Merit Insurance Company, and ask for its marriage or its birth certificate. We all took it for granted that there was such a company.
If the hon. gentleman could bring irrefutable evidence-and I mean irrefutable evidence, not just conjecture or speculation and waffling around among documents-to indicate that one of these petitioners was silly enough to come here and spend his or her money in trying to get a divorce when there was no marriage at all, then I think he would have a real point and we would want to drop the bill then and there. But it does not seem to me that it is reasonable or right, when all we are considering is the principle of a bill, for any hon. member to seek to transgress the rules of the house, or to take up the time

of the house which is supposed to be devoted exclusively to discussing the principle of this bill-and the only principle I can see is whether or not there should be a dissolution -by all sorts of irrelevaneies which are obviously not pertinent to the main question.
If any hon. member does not want to have one of these marriages dissolved, he can ask for a division on the measure and have the question settled that way, so that all of us have an equal right to determine it. It seems to me that it is about time


Mr. Benidickson:: We want to avoid this whole impasse.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, speaking for myself, I say that I want to see parliament do what parliament ought to do, as long as there is no other method of doing it, and that is to provide relief in these cases.
It does not seem to me, sir, that procedural devices which the Chair repeatedly questions, and which I hope Your Honour intends to rule against, in the sense that Your Honour appears to be ruling, will be allowed any longer to delay the proper determination of these matters.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate had his way and the principle of this bill was that which he mentioned, namely whether we should handle these bills in the house or not, then that question would be debatable and a lot of people would co-operate with him. But it seems to me that in this as in the case of all other private bills there must be some principle or else we would not be handling it at all.
I find, not from looking at the evidence but from looking at the bill itself, that certain allegations are made, and some of those allegations must have some relationship to the principle. I think the allegations are the adultery charges and the other charges involved, which I think Your Honour has ruled are not to be discussed at this stage-and I think that is perfectly clear and correct. However, if there was no marriage of the parties described in this bill, then I think there is no principle, and unless the bill were worded differently there would be no point in its being before us.
For this reason I think we should have the opportunity, as we would with any other bill, of discussing that principle. Some hon. members may never have read one of these bills, and in case they have not, I should like to read not the preamble but one of the clauses to the bill. It says:
The said marriage is hereby dissolved and shall be henceforth null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
Nothing can be amended or changed in any way if there is not a principle to change.
Divorce Bills
It would seem to me that the principle must be the marriage itself. I would respectfully submit, as the lawyers say, that this is the principle of this bill and that hon. members on second reading should concern themselves at least to this degree with the principle of the bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On two occasions in the last few minutes it has been said that we are limited to discussing the principle of the bill, that the principle of the bill is whether or not we wish to dissolve a marriage, that any member who wishes to object to the dissolution of a particular marriage can vote against the bill, and that those who wish to dissolve a marriage may vote for the bill. It seems to me that it is preposterous to ask me as a member of parliament to agree to the dissolution of a marriage or to vote against the dissolution of a marriage without being able to discuss and debate the alleged grounds for asking that the marriage be dissolved, without any opportunity to discuss whether or not proper and adequate provision has been made for the children of such a marriage, if there are any, and whether or not adequate provision has been made for the wife through alimony. How is any member of this House of Commons, intelligently and with a proper sense of responsibility, going to vote to dissolve a marriage unless the germane and relevant matters have been discussed and debated?


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member referred to one marriage out of 500 that might come before parliament for investigation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not only with regard to one out of 500 but with regard to every one of the 500 I say you have the right to have this kind of information. If members of parliament are going to exercise the power to dissolve marriages, they ought to exercise it with a sense of responsibility. If ever there was a demonstration of the travesty of the House of Commons having this power, this is it. This is exactly why it ought to be taken away from this parliament. However, if we are to be compelled to exercise this power, then let us exercise it with a proper sense of responsibility. I submit that we cannot exercise it with a proper sense of responsibility unless we can discuss the grounds upon which it is wise and appropriate to dissolve a marriage or the grounds upon which we should vote against dissolving that marriage. I submit that I do not know how it is possible to discuss the principle of dissolving a marriage unless we can discuss and debate all the relevant facts which make it either advisable or inadvisable to grant dissolution of a marriage.

Divorce Bills


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since we are on an extremely important point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might say a word in direct reply to what has been said by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. It seems to me that his argument, which would otherwise be valid, is based on a totally false premise. It seems to me that the false premise is that the agreement to the second reading would dissolve the marriage. It would do nothing of the kind. It would send the bill to a committee where any and every hon. member who wishes to do so can satisfy himself to his heart's content, in a proper atmosphere, where it could be done, not by debate and the clash of opinion but by the examination of evidence, something which cannot possibly be done on second reading in the House of Commons. If this were the only opportunity to consider the matter, if second reading in the house were the only opportunity to consider the merits of these cases, I would agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. However, it is not the only opportunity. All that second reading of this bill or of any other private bill is, is a device whereby this house gets it before a committee-as every private bill goes to a committee-where the evidence can be properly sifted. It is only on third reading that a decision is being made as to whether or not the bill shall pass and the relief be granted.
It therefore seems to me that the hon. gentleman's argument falls totally to the ground. All we are deciding really is whether there is a prima facie case for sending the bill on to the committee and nothing else. It seems to me that is the only thing that ought to be debated. To use the rules of the house as an indirect device, as some hon. members seem to wish to do, for seeking to impose the will of a minority upon the majority about a matter on which they cannot get the support of a majority, seems to me to be an abuse of the rules of the house.


Mr. Orlikow:: I had not intended to speak on this bill, Mr. Speaker. However, as a member of the miscellaneous private bills committee, who has not yet attended a meeting of it, I wish to say that I have no more faith that the matter would be discussed logically and intelligently, that the committee would get any more of the facts or that the committee could bring to this house a sensible and reasonable recommendation than I have that we can do it here without discussing the actual cases. I understand that this morning, as it has done on other occasions, the committee passed a block of nine or ten of the bills without calling a single witness and without doing anything but get the report from the other committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not in order at this time in discussing anything that transpired in a standing committee, whether based on actual knowledge or on reputed knowledge through a report in the press or otherwise. He can only deal with the subject matter of what has transpired in the committee when the committee report is made and the report is before us, but not otherwise.


David Orlikow: I do not wish to argue with your ruling, Mr. Speaker. However, if we cannot discuss these cases here in the house on this debate on second reading, my contention is that there is no adequate opportunity to discuss the matter in the committee at any stage. If we cannot really discuss it on third reading when it comes here, what are we here for? I think the point which the leader of our party made is very germane, namely that this house cannot discuss this matter sensibly at any point and that therefore it ought not to be here. I think that is the main point we are trying to make.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless hon. members will make a new point in regard to this point of order, I am quite prepared to indicate what my views are. However, I will hear the hon. member for York South if he is going to add something new.


David Lewis: I do not know whether or not it is new, Mr. Speaker, however, I wish to point out that the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate obviously exposed a lack of logic in his presentation, if I may say so, by his very argument in that towards the end of his proposition he said to the house that what we are doing on second reading is satisfying ourselves that there is-and these were his words-a prima facie case to send the bill to committee. I ask the hon. member and also Your Honour how it is conceivably possible to decide that there is a prima facie case or any other kind of case to send anything to the committee without being able to discuss some of the relevant bases on which the bill before the house is founded.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that to apply the term "principle" in the way in which it is sought to apply it on a discussion on second reading of this kind of bill is to divest the word of any relevant meaning at all and is to engage in merely circular reasoning. What in effect is suggested is that on second reading all we can discuss is whether or not this bill is, if you like, something that can go to committee; but are not allowed to discuss what that something is that is to go to committee. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what in effect this kind of

ruling means is that this House of Commons is to act as nothing more than a rubber-stamp on second reading.
Before us is the title of a bill. We are then to rubberstamp it and send it to some committee for whatever that committee may or may not do. If that is done I submit that this house, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has said, is not doing its job and we cannot possibly vote either for or against the bill with any sense of satisfaction at all because we are not voting on the basis of any knowledge or understanding or appreciation of what the bill is really about. Surely that is not acting as responsible members of parliament.
I throw back at the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate the suggestion that a minority is seeking to impose something on the majority. He can interpret it as he pleases. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that on this issue this group is presenting, if I may say so without offence, the only logical, the only consistent proposition, the only proposition that makes sense, namely that this house either act responsibly or not act at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Greenwood has anything new to add I will hear him, but this point of order has been canvassed across and up and down.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point that I think is new. It is certainly new on the question of this ruling, and it is a question of principle. What is the principle of the bill? The bill before us merely provides for the dissolution of a certain marriage. It does not deal in any way with the question of whether the wife, whose marriage is being dissolved, is adequately provided for. On an examination of the evidence it does appear that she has inadequate means to provide for herself.
If the matter is to go to a committee of this house it should go with some understanding of the principle, and as far as I am concerned there is a basic principle which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate may ignore if he will. That principle is, is it responsible for this house to direct this committee to inquire into a bill that totally fails in principle to deal with an important matter of this sort? I suggest that it is not responsible for the house to pass this bill without providing in it that there be some investigation of this crucial matter.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully-


Mr. Speaker:: One moment. The hon.
member for Portage-Neepawa.
Divorce Bills


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Speaker, I feel there is another principle that we seem to be forgetting. I have the uncomfortable feeling that the debate, as it is progressing, is really putting parliament in the awkward position of being in violation of one of its own statutes, the bill of rights. Surely there are individuals who are entitled to the benefit of the law. Whether it is a perfect law or an imperfect law does not mean to say that we should circumvent the law. If we do not like income tax we still have to pay it, though we might want to amend that law. Here is a law under which marriages are dissolved and this is not being allowed. Therefore I suggest that the rights of those individuals who are not being given this right are being violated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question before me at the moment is a point of order with respect to whether certain evidence will be examined in detail or otherwise on second reading. That is the neat issue once and for all. If hon. members wish to address themselves to the point, that is the question, but otherwise the Chair is prepared to make its ruling.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, may I attempt to assist Your Honour in determining this question? Your Honour has suggested that the matter-


William Moore Benidickson: Is the hon. member
speaking on the point of order?


An hon. Member:: Would you kindly sit down until he makes it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will not address one another directly in this fashion. I would ask the hon. member to address himself to the point of order and continue with his remarks.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I was about to do so before the interruption. Your Honour suggested that all that the house may consider on second reading of this bill is the principle of the bill, and I think that all hon. members are entirely in agreement with Your Honour on that score.
The difficulty arises at the next stage. The hon. member for Skeena has suggested that in order to determine whether the principle of the bill is sound it is necessary to investigate the truth or falsity of certain matters that are found in the evidence. I suggest that upon reflection Your Honour will conclude that in fact it is essential for the house to consider the question whether there is a valid marriage and whether the other conditions which are necessary for the granting of relief have been satisfied in this case. Otherwise it seems to me, with great

Divorce Bills
respect, that the house has really nothing at all to talk about when such a bill comes before it.
In other words, if the house is not at liberty to consider the truth or falsity of the allegations upon which the right to any relief rests in this case, the only thing the house can talk about is the general advisability of marriages being dissolved at all. The house has before it this bill, a single bill. It has before it this marriage and only this marriage. The question therefore is whether this bill should be read a second time and whether this marriage should be dissolved.
As a new member, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to question any suggestions that come from the Chair but, with great respect, I suggest that in logic and in common sense the position taken by the hon. member for Skeena is sound. I came into the house this afternoon looking forward to hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena with respect to this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member is doing anything but traversing arguments that have already been put forward. In actual fact he is flying directly in the face of citations 482 and 483 in this regard. On this point I think I have heard quite sufficient from both sides of the house and on several sides of the question. It seems to me that there is a misapprehension as to the difference between second reading of a public bill and of a private bill.
I would also place this point before certain hon. members who have spoken-perhaps there are others-who may not have an appreciation of the functions involved and what is going to happen to this bill or bills of a similar type if they should receive second reading. There is a miscellaneous private bills committee in which this bill can be studied. If hon. members will either become members of that committee or attend the meetings of that committee, as others have done, they will learn what can be done at that committee. If its members are not satisfied they may request that the witnesses be called and examined, as has been done by that committee. That is the purpose of having the bill referred to the committee and why it is not discussed here in the house.
It is on that basis that I am of the opinion that on second reading it is improper to discuss any of the evidence. It is only proper to discuss the principle of the bill. Shall there be or shall there not be a divorce or relief as sought in the bill? Appreciating as

I do the nature of the second reading of a private bill as indicated in citations 482 and 483 in Beauchesne, which furthermore has been the practice of this house for years and has been accepted by all, I would point out that it is acceptance in principle only, with the bill being referred to the committee for greater study.
That is what my ruling is. If hon. members find the principle of the bill repugnant they may seek to defeat the bill but only on the basis of principle and not by going into the evidence.
Reference was made a few moments ago to another private bill. It would have been equally meritorious, I would suggest, to seek to have the hon. member who presented the bill put before the house the certificate of incorporation of the company or other documentation of the company. This is not done on second reading in this house. It may be done in the committee. That is what I propose to rule, and I so rule.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could, we be exact about the ruling? When you said what you were going to rule upon a few minutes ago, it was whether or not on second reading the evidence could be gone into in detail. Do I take if you are ruling now that the evidence may not be referred to at all or that it may not be gone into in detail?


Mr. Speaker:: In the presentation of a bill, the hon. member presenting the bill could say, this is an act for the dissolution of the marriage between such and such parties on such and such a date; that is all. It is quite irrelevant to this particular point, I would submit to hon. members to talk about children or maintenance. There may be some lawyers who would reflect upon this question. Is this house empowered to deal with the question of children, is it empowered to supervise these matters and how could it enforce any such bill, particularly one relating to the custody of children? I think we could have a very serious argument on constitutional grounds. In the same way, does the house not have some difficulty in dealing with a property settlement, or with the awarding of maintenance or alimony? Surely, at the moment there is existing machinery with regard to these matters. I say that we are not going to go into the question of evidence on second reading.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think Your Honour has given a very convincing argument as to why parliament should not be handling divorce.


Frank Howard: Since I had the floor debating a bill before the point of order arose, and with the greatest respect to your ruling and all the discussion about it, and since I have

been invited by yourself, by the Liberal party and others to blindly vote yes or no for this particular bill, I see no other course available but to put the house in the position of dividing on each and every one of these bills.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask for a ruling in respect of your own ruling? You mentioned the problem of the jurisdiction of this house to deal with such matters as maintenance and custody. Did Your Honour make any ruling in that respect, because if you did I should like to discuss it with Your Honour?
Division
Munro	Skoreyko
Nasserden	Slogan
Nesbitt	Smallwood
Nicholson	Smith (Simcoe North)
Noble	Southam
Nugent	Starr
Ormiston	Stefanson
Pascoe	Stenson
Patterson	Thomas
Pennell	Thompson
Pickersgill	Tucker
Pugh	Wahn
Rapp	Walker
Rowe	Webb
Rynard	Weichel
Sams	Winkler
Simpson	Woolliams-111.


Mr. Speaker:: I have made no ruling in that regard. I said the point had been mentioned but I felt it was quite irrelevant to the point of order. I merely addressed those thoughts to hon. members for their cogitation on some occasion; it is not a ruling. In so far as this particular bill is concerned, if anyone wishes to speak on the principle of the bill along the lines indicated by the Chair, then we will go ahead. Otherwise, I will put the question.


William Moore Benidickson: I was paired.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: I was paired with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean). If I had voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.
Addison
Aiken
Alkenbrack
Baldwin
Baskin
Beer
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Bigg
Bradley
Brown
Byrne
Cadieu
Cardiff
Carter
Casselman, Mrs.
Chaplin
Churchill
Clancy
Clunis
Coates
Cooper
Cowan
Crestohl
Crouse
Davis
Dinsdale
Doucett
Drury
Enns
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fairweather
Fane
Fleming (Eglinton) Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Flemming (Victoria-Carleton)
Forbes
Forgie
Garland
Gray
Green
Grills
Gundlock
Hales
Halpenny
Hanbidge
Harkness
Harley
Hellyer
Hodgson
Honey
Horner (The Battlefords)
Howe
Jones
Jorgenson
Kennedy
Kindt
LaMarsh, Miss
Macdonald (Rosedale)
MacEwan
MacLean (Queens)
Macnaughton
MacRae
McBain
Mcllraith
McIntosh
McLean (Charlotte)
McPhillips
Mandziuk
Matheson
Millar
Mitchell
Monteith
Moore
More
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Muir (Lisgar)


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private members' business having expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton)-Mr. Chown in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish an Atlantic development board and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the board and for the payment of certain expenses of the members thereof, to provide for the appointment of an executive director of the board and for the payment of his remuneration, to provide further that the board may engage the services of such advisers and staff as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its duties and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, if I could continue to summarize some of the concerns
2312	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Atlantic Development Board or fears we have with regard to the proposed Atlantic development board, I would refer to one particular matter to which the minister, in introducing the resolution before us, referred-a matter he had also raised when he was premier of the province of New Brunswick-and that is that we hope that economic policies which would be adopted in relation to particular economic circumstances facing the nation as a whole would not be unilaterally applied to a particular region of the country such as the maritimes. This has, of course, particular significance in the situation such as that which faces Canada today. Because of the situation which exists, austerity is precisely that much more serious in our region. I was somewhat concerned at the reference the minister made, when he said something along these lines: that no preconceived suggestions or conclusions, would be acted upon. I can understand why he would want to refer to that, but once again I hope this is not a means of slowing down action which can be taken in certain fields by the government without further study.
We also hope that consideration will be given to the question of certain companies growing fat on government assistance. Because we are not demanding assistance for the sake of assistance. If there is a place for particular subsidies for a given industry, we would hope that these would be investigated and supervised in order that no particular section of our economy benefits as a result of the situation facing us in our area. Therefore I suggest that there are some major projects, such as the Chignecto canal, which I hope will not be proceeded with simply because some particular individual or some small group of individuals in the Atlantic provinces sees this type of project as something worth while. Perhaps it is; but I suggest that it is unlike those other conclusions we have reached in certain particular areas which we have been studying for a number of years, and on which there is agreement in the region and across the nation. This is a matter in relation to which we have to ask some questions, such as these: Who will benefit from a Chignecto canal project? Will it add in any considerable measure to the lives of our people in this region of Canada?
The minister, during the course of his introduction of this resolution, referred to the fact that for some reason or other we have lagged behind the rest of Canada. We understand what this reason is. In 1867 we decided to build and to found this nation of Canada. In order to do that we had to implement

and act upon national development policies- the trans-continental railway system, our tariff barriers, the opening of the west, and what have you. As a result of these policies, which were not based on traditional economic principles, we defied economics in order to build this nation, and in so doing we in the eastern region of Canada have suffered economically. Therefore we have reached a point where it is time that regional policies made up for the difficulties which have been created in our area while certain benefits were provided to people in other parts of Canada.
One final point, Mr. Chairman, with regard to any program of development in any region of Canada. I suggest that there is no hope in an Atlantic development board, or in any body involving a similar principle, for accomplishing the objectives of such a program until we can find the answer to solve the economic problems which face the nation. You cannot talk about full employment, which is a desirable goal for the Atlantic provinces, until we can provide full employment across Canada. We know what the situation has been over the years in that part of the country. We have witnessed and experienced some degree of prosperity when conditions were good in other parts of Canada, and the extra trickled over the brim and ran down to our people. The only times we have ever had real prosperity were during the railway construction boom and during the two previous world wars. We suggest that these are not events which are to be expected again soon, so that it is essential that we use the economic development board to provide this country with an adequate rate of economic growth. Then using the Atlantic development board, we can truly develop a sound industrial economic base and provide our people with a standard of living and equality of opportunity in line with people in the rest of Canada.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to have an opportunity of speaking on this resolution, which is of such great value and significance to the Atlantic provinces. Before I move in to my main remarks, I think I should make some comments on the statements made in this debate by the hon. member for Gloucester. He posed some questions with regard to a number of specific problems which faced him, both in relation to this board and to the government's policy as it applies to the Atlantic provinces. One of the questions he asked was what we had done in the past five and a half years. The hon. member has been in this house during that period, and far be it from me to say what he has been doing.

He has certainly been criticizing almost everything that the government has brought before this house during that period.
However, I think I should say to him that the first thing we did was to adopt a different attitude on the part of the federal government in dealing with the Atlantic provinces. We did not tell the people of that area that they should have one way tickets to some other part of Canada. We did not tell the people of that area that we should leave the coal in the ground.


An hon. Member:: What did you do?


Robert Carman Coates: What we did was to provide a means of boosting the economy of that area to a degree that it had never reached previously. There is every indication, in every manner, that this is the way in which the people feel in that part of the country. I say to hon. members opposite that they are the people who should know that better than anybody else because they are the ones who have suffered materially through their neglect of that area. An hon. member asks what we did. May I say that we gave the provinces $100 million in special grants for a period of four years and we are now going to give them $175 million over the next five years. That is one of the measures we took. We talk about a power grid. Somebody say's that Mr. Lesage put it forward. May 1 point out that the Liberal party put forward hospital insurance in 1919 but it took us to put it into effect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That statement, of course, is inaccurate.


Robert Carman Coates: We acted. They can talk as much as they wish about the power grid between the three maritime provinces. However, talk as they like we, the Conservative party in this country and the Conservative government in this country, put into effect the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act.


Mr. Fisher:: The Diefenbaker government.


Robert Carman Coates: It was the Diefenbaker government. He is still leader of the government and the leader of this country and I am proud of him.
I could spend hours in this house-and I do not think my hon. friends would enjoy it a bit-in talking about what we have done for the Atlantic provinces.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Why such a bill?


Robert Carman Coates: Atlantic Development Board all hope and expect it will be. From the debate on this legislation and from the lips of members from the Atlantic provinces must come ideas, enthusiasm and leadership. The legislation demands this type of approach; the board it will create demands it; and the members of that board must anticipate it. They must look to us to provide the initial ideas that could transform our area to one of health and vigour.
I was very pleased to see the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Forestry introduce this measure. He is a man who has provided outstanding leadership to our area throughout his life. He gave leadership to the present self-help approach to our problems on his election as premier of New Brunswick in 1952. Since that date we have seen the Atlantic premiers conference become an annual event of great significance. We have seen the establishment of the Atlantic provinces economic council, with the resultant benefits that have accrued to our area through their leadership. Now we see the minister guiding this legislation through the house. It is legislation which carries with it the hopes and aspirations of all in our area.
In order to assure the success of this board we must see to it that the ablest men in our area, regardless of their political affiliations, are appointed to it. We must see that they are presented at an early date with evidence that specific projects will have a long term beneficial effect on the economy of our area. We must hope and expect that the board will act quickly on those projects which have already had exhaustive investigations into their merits and demerits carried out. The board must move quickly in making the government aware of their recommendations and at that time we must move swiftly in seeing that the proper action is taken.
From a personal view, there are two specific projects which I consider merit early consideration by this house and by the board. The first is the Chignecto complex on which the minister has already made some comment. The second is the re-establishment of the Minas basin ferry service. The Chignecto complex does not demand the extensive investigation that might once have been required. The Chignecto canal committee has already had a comprehensive investigation carried out into the potential of the bay of Fundy tides, from an energy point of view. It is a study that demands the most intensive consideration and at the earliest date possible. With the development of this tidal power, one might well see the transformation of our area through a tremendous industrial expansion. This project has an

annual energy potential of 5| billion kilowatt hours. Estimates of mill rates run from 2.87 mills per kilowatt hour to 5.13 mills per kilowatt hour, depending on the interest rate and amortization. With this project we see the means by which we can accomplish the task before us. I might add that an integral part of this tidal development would be the construction of large thermal power plants. This would provide a much needed shot in the arm for the coal industry of our area. It is my view that we should expect an early report from the board on the feasibility of harnessing the tides. Certainly if a positive decision were brought down construction of the dam to harness the tides and construction of the thermal power plants should begin immediately.
The second project I feel could come before the board at an early date is the Minas basin ferry service. This is an important transportation facility that was available to the maritime provinces until 1940. At that time the ferry was removed from the area as a war measure and never returned. At the present time a great deal of information is available on the potential of this transportation link. The Stanfield government had a very exhaustive investigation carried out, and the only hindrance to its re-establishment has been the high cost of wharfage facilities. This link would provide a saving in mileage of as much as 115 miles to areas in the Annapolis valley and southwestern Nova Scotia. It is not difficult to imagine the great boost it would provide to the tourist industry, to agriculture and to our fisheries. There has been discussion of late on the possibility of obtaining a hovercraft. This craft would eliminate the heavy wharfage costs necessary for the ordinary type of facility if a scheduled service were to be provided.
There is another possibility associated with this transportation link between the Annapolis valley and Cumberland. It is the recommendation associated with the Chignecto complex that a dam be constructed to harness the waters of the Minas basin. This dam would be constructed where the ferry would operate. If the dam were recommended and could be used as a causeway as well, the need for the ferry service would be eliminated.
There are many projects related to every area of our economy which deserve consideration and action. It is up to us to see that they are brought to the board's attention. It is up to the board to see that they are dealt with swiftly. If the recommendation is positive, then the government must transform its recommendation into reality. If it is negative, we must immediately move on to another. There will be many projects submitted and

they will vary in their over-all effect. Certainly those with the greatest potential effect should be considered first. Let us work together to make this board what we feel it should be. Let us look forward to early results from our efforts.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, I wish to pay tribute to Brigadier Michael Wardell. He has carried out a dedicated crusade to make the Atlantic development board a reality. His persistent guidance is exemplified by the fact that all four political parties during the last election campaign considered such a board essential as a cure for the ills of our area. He has been a visionary who, with the passage of this legislation, will see the initial step taken. Let us not fail in our quest to make the remainder of his dream as real as this initial step.


Francis Andrew Brewin: 
Mr. McGrath:: I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to lend a few words of support to this resolution, particularly after having sat here and listened to the political speech delivered by the hon. member for Gloucester. He prefaced his remarks by saying his party only intended to put up one speaker. In other words, he hoped the rest of us would be just as big about this and we would get the resolution through. What he forgot to say was: I am going to be big enough to speak on this resolution, politics notwithstanding. But he could not do that. He then went on to give us a half hour political speech.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about the minister?


James Aloysius McGrath: If my hon. friend wishes to make a contribution to this debate we would be glad to hear him, if his turn comes.
This is just another step in a series of steps taken by this government since 1957 when we came into office to remedy, with tangible action, the years of neglect, the lean years of Liberal administration.


An hon. Member:: No political speeches.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am speaking in the same vein as my hon. friend from Gloucester who took the time of this house for 30 minutes. The only difference is, Mr. Chairman, that my words are factual.

The hon. member in his speech referred at great length to what should be done, and indeed he referred to the number of times during the last several years that hon. members in the opposition had advocated such a board as this resolution envisages. Apparently to look back beyond six years, in the hon. gentleman's estimation, is to go back into ancient history. Indeed, it should be ancient history if it is to be to their advantage because they would have us forget, as the people of the Atlantic provinces have not forgotten, the years and years during which the pleas of the Atlantic provinces fell on deaf ears. I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is aware of the fact that as late as the year 1955 the premier of Newfoundland actually threatened to lead his province out of confederation rather than continue to tolerate the second class treatment that was being handed out by the government in Ottawa, of which my hon. friend was a member. We did not hear any comments from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate at that time, nor did we hear any comments from the hon. member for Gloucester because they knew when to keep quiet.
In order to correct some of the inaccuracies left on the record by my hon. friend, I should like to refer briefly to the tremendous record of this administration, a record which was referred to in the Atlantic Advocate as deserving of the support of the Atlantic provinces. I should like to refer to that record particularly as it applies to the province of Newfoundland. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, this is a province which is a little behind the three maritime provinces which, as my hon. friend mentioned, were lagging behind the other provinces.
When this government came into office in 1957, the grants to the province of Newfoundland, including conditional and unconditional grants, amounted to approximately $25 million a year. Five years later, Mr. Chairman, those same grants had been increased to almost $70 million a year. Indeed, the increases were so impressive that the premier of Newfoundland was forced to admit it was time for a change in Ottawa and he was glad the government had changed in 1957.
My hon. friend had very little to say when asked to point his finger to one single project the Liberals had implemented to improve the lot of the Atlantic provinces. All that he could refer to was camp Gagetown, a national defence project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the Canso causeway, he mentioned that.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps we are going to hear from my hon. friend later in the debate. He has had very little to say because the record of that government in respect of the Atlantic provinces is well known in the Atlantic provinces, as my hon. friend is well aware and as he found out when he foresook his own constituency last spring to campaign in Prince Edward Island. We know what happened in Prince Edward Island. We know what happened when he campaigned in Nova Scotia.


An hon. Member:: What happened in Newfoundland?


James Aloysius McGrath: As a matter of fact, when the next election rolls around I hope my hon. friend will carry on the same activities in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. Let us hope we have the same results, and I think we will.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You mean double our representation in Nova Scotia?


James Aloysius McGrath: It seems to me to be interesting, Mr. Chairman, that in an area which lags behind the rest of Canada so far as development is concerned and which, like other areas in Canada, suffers from seasonal unemployment and perhaps to a greater degree, nothing was done by my hon. friends opposite in the area of vocational training. Indeed, it was not until this government came into office and saw the great need in Canada, particularly in areas like the Atlantic provinces, for vocational training that anything was done. For example under the policy of the Liberals, if you could call it that, they did nothing to encourage vocational training. Indeed, they tried to discourage it. It was not until this government put some teeth in the legislation and made the federal contribution 75 per cent that it was possible for the province of Newfoundland and other Atlantic inces to implement a comprehensive program of vocational training.


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary secretary. However, I should remind him that this is not a throne speech debate, but rather consideration of a resolution which has to do with the establishment of an Atlantic development board. I realize that the wording which follows tends to permit a rather wide scope for debate, but I do feel I would be straining the rule of relevancy if I allowed the parliamentary secretary to continue with the comments he has just made. I would ask him to try to come back more specifically to the point under discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order you have raised, the hon. gentleman has obviously spent hours and days and
Atlantic Development Board weeks preparing this speech. He does not take up the time of the house very often, and I think we should extend to him the widest possible tolerance, notwithstanding the fact that he does not seem to know what the resolution is about.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate for his charitable remarks, but unlike some of his colleagues, what I do have to say is my own and it was not farmed out from Messrs. Kent and Lamontagne.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Who wrote your speech?


James Aloysius McGrath: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman who purports to be the senior spokesman for the Atlantic provinces would contain himself, I would remind him that from 1953 to 1957 when he was supposedly the next prime minister of Canada; he was the great man, the senior statesman for the Atlantic provinces, the great friend of Premier Smallwood. What did he do for the province that so kindly and charitably adopted him? He went across Canada making speeches about second class Canadians; that is all he could do, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman like me to answer his question?


James Aloysius McGrath: In later years the best he has been able to do is fill the pages of Hansard with irresponsible remarks. I will conclude my remarks at second reading. There is one thing to which I should like to refer before I resume my seat, an editorial which appeared in the Atlantic Advocate of June, 1962.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Who wrote it?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, this magazine is probably not greeted too favourably by hon. gentlemen opposite because it truly represents the thoughts and feelings of the Atlantic provinces. I quote from page 11:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker has announced his new policy for the Atlantic provinces in words which have thrilled the region. He has announced his government's decision to establish, under federal authority, an Atlantic development board.
Then the article goes on to say:
The Diefenbaker government has given to the Atlantic provinces more by far than has any government of any party at any time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a point of order. Is there not a rule in the house against reading speeches that have been written by someone sitting in the gallery?


Mr. Clancy:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have had so much interruption by the hon. member for Gloucester-

Atlantic Development Board


Mr. Rohichaud:: Name him.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. There was no point of order, as is apparent to the hon. member who raised it. The parliamentary secretary has the floor, and I would ask hon. members to co-operate, because I cannot hear.


Mr, McGrath:: Obviously, Mr. Chairman,-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Give us the name of the person who wrote that.


James Aloysius McGrath: -hon. gentlemen opposite are just not prepared to listen to the facts. They did nothing for so long, that when something tangible is done, all they can do is laugh and ridicule. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this resolution is the most important measure ever to be introduced in this house with respect to the Atlantic provinces, and it is just the culmination of the efforts of this government over the years to do for the Atlantic provinces what the Liberals failed to do during the 22 years of neglect when they were in office.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended taking any part in the discussion of this resolution, but after listening to some of the government supporters speaking on it I thought I had better find out if they were talking about the same resolution that was being discussed by this committee. I listened to their eloquent exaggerations as to what this resolution will do, statements that this is the greatest piece of legislation ever passed in the interests of the maritimes, the statement that this is going to make the maritimers masters of their own destiny, and so on, and thought it might be a good thing if we just came back to the actual facts of this resolution before the debate is wound up.
Let me say, in the first place, that I think hon. members from all other parts of Canada will welcome the idea of having an Atlantic development board. I would like to compliment the minister who introduced the resolution. I know all hon. members of the house would want to say to him that neither he, the government nor anyone else need ever apologize for bringing in special legislation for this area of Canada. Because I think we agree with him when he says that this area deserves special consideration and demands special action. This is the case because the Atlantic provinces have had for many years a lower per capita income than the rest of Canada, a higher rate of unemployment than any other part of Canada-certainly higher than the national average-and they have had particular problems which have brought with them difficulties both social and economic.
I have been rather amused all day listening to the Liberal and Conservative members

each trying to lay the blame on the other party for the conditions in the Atlantic provinces. I certainly do not intend to get into this game of trying to prove that it is the Conservatives' fault or the Liberals' fault that conditions are as they are in the Atlantic provinces. All I want to say is that the conditions are there, that they are appalling, that both the old line parties which have governed Canada since 1867 must accept responsibility for this state of affairs, that there is not much use spending time in attaching blame; the problem now is to get on with the job of trying to improve the situation. It has been more than a matter of a lack of government policy.
We have had in Canada since 1867 national policies which have deliberately developed a great industrial heartland in central Canada. That policy, by means of transportation, tariffs and investment, has used western Canada and the Atlantic provinces to supply raw materials and fuel, and on the other hand has made them the market place for the products of central Canada. There is a price you have to pay for such a policy, and certainly the Atlantic provinces, and at certain times western Canada, have paid the price. Therefore, no one need apologize for saying that in those circumstances in addition to a national economic development board we need an Atlantic development board to pay particular attention to the problems of the Atlantic provinces.
I rose simply for the purpose of saying that I think supporters of the government would have been much fairer to this committee and to this country as well as to the eastern provinces of Canada if, instead of those purple passages about this being the magna carta of the Atlantic provinces they had simply said what was the truth, namely that they were going to set up a development board for the Atlantic provinces which would be an advisory board whose function apparently, would be to collect data, to look into the possibility of certain economic projects and to make recommendations. In other words, it would be a regional version of the national economic development board.
This resolution and the bill which will follow can be for the Atlantic provinces either invaluable or valueless, and what is done will depend entirely on the extent to which the recommendations of this board are implemented. Actually, much of its work has already been done by the Atlantic provinces economic council. APEC has produced reports on economic projects for the Atlantic provinces which are broad in scope and excellent in concept. So in actual fact

the board which it is now proposed to establish will not have to do very much work. Things like the Chignecto canal, the Fundy hydro power development and at least half a dozen cornerstone industries have been fully investigated by the Atlantic economic council. They have collected a wealth of data, and if all this board is going to do is mull over the same material its work will be a waste of time.
I personally would have preferred to see a department of government set up rather than an advisory board, because that is what this is. I would like to see a department charged for the present with the task of promoting economic development in the eastern provinces and raising the living standards there-a department with a minister, a deputy minister and staff. When the provinces had been brought up to the national standard, the department could be disbanded. Such a department which would have power and, above all, an allocation of funds and a clearly defined purpose in mind, might go far toward accomplishing this purpose. So let us not forget that this proposed board will be an advisory board and that if its recommendations do not receive any more attention than some of the recommendations of the various boards and commissions which have been set up during recent years, the resolution before us is not worth the paper it is printed on.
In the second place, the effectiveness of this board will depend on whether or not there is an Atlantic development fund set up from which the board can draw the funds necessary to implement its program. We do not need more economic surveys; we do not need more economic analyses; we do not need more paper plans. We have reached the point where money, and very large sums of money, are needed. The hon. member for Gloucester talked about a billion dollars over the next 10 years. A billion dollars over the next 10 years would not begin in my humble opinion to cope with the problem of economic development in the four Atlantic provinces.


An hon. Member:: How much?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Much larger sums than that will be needed. As the hon. member for Red Deer pointed out, we are now spending $150 million a year on social welfare. I would say that a billion dollars over the next five years would be needed in the Atlantic provinces. If the expenditure of that money helps to provide full employment and takes people off the social welfare roll and off unemployment insurance, it will be the best investment the people of Canada ever made. So let us not begrudge the expenditure of money like
National Productivity Council Act this. When I hear members of the government side say "How much?" and "Where are you going to get it?" this makes me suspicious as to how much money will be behind this economic development board. If this is going to be just another board to cut out paper dolls and make coloured pictures and charts, I, for one, will be very disappointed. I want to tell the hon. member to my left that if, proportionately, the Atlantic provinces could get as much for industrial development as the province with which I was associated I think they would be very happy to see the government putting up that much money.
When the bill comes down, the sponsor of this resolution may be able to give us some information as to the machinery which will be set up for implementing the recommendations of this new board. He may be able to tell us what sums of money over what period of time will be available in an Atlantic economic development fund. I hope he will also be able to tell us whether or not the major economic groups in the Atlantic provinces will be represented on this board-whether business, labour, primary producers and consumers as well as the provincial governments will be represented, so that the board may be truly representative not only of the four provinces concerned but of the various economic outlooks involved.
We in our group will support this resolution but we will support it in the hope that all the good things which have been placed in the store window this afternoon will not prove to be just window dressing, but that when the bill comes down and when we go into the store there will be some goods on the shelf.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleion) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-94, for the establishment of an Atlantic development board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL ACT


George Harris Hees: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Productivity Council Act, to provide for the appointment of three additional members thereof and for the payment of certain expenses of such members, to provide further for the payment of all expenses of the council out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Paul in the chair.

National Productivity Council Act


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the amendments to the National Productivity Council Act proposed by this resolution provide for the following changes. The membership of the council will be increased by three members, who will be additional representatives of the fields of industry and commerce, organized labour, agriculture and other primary industries. This will give the council a total membership of 28 persons. Provision will be made for the appointment of a vice chairman of the council who will assist the chairman and act in his absence. The staff of the council will be brought under the Government Employees Compensation Act. The council's expenses will be paid from moneys appropriated by parliament in the light of the council's programs instead of through a fixed annual amount established in the act as is at present the case.
The purpose of these amendments is to assist the council in carrying out this greatly expanded program. These activities have been developed in consultation with leaders of business, organized labour, education and provincial bodies. The new provisions should greatly strengthen the ability of the council to implement its new program, which takes on added importance in view of the proposed legislation to establish a national economic development board. The council and the development board will complement each other's activities, each lending support to the endeavours of the other. The activities of the development board will, however, emphasize and underline the need for effective measures on a wide front to help Canadian industry to be as competitive as possible. The productivity council will be concerned in large measure with this very important task.
Now, Mr. Chairman, during the past year and a half the council has planned and undertaken a very comprehensive program. All of these activities are intended to help Canadian businessmen to compete more effectively both in the home and in world markets. I should like briefly to mention some of the key features of this program, because I believe that businessmen, labour leaders and the general public should know more about the useful work being carried out by the council. In collaboration with the universities, the council is sponsoring courses on work study. In addition seminars, conferences, lectures, and discussion groups have been systematically organized to promote work study in industrial centres across Canada. The council is playing an important role in encouraging the development of improved management techniques, and the use of training and retraining programs. Extensive work is being undertaken in the field of human relations in industry. An examination of the

extent of industrial research in certain key industries is under way. Careful consideration is being given to ways of encouraging more research. Information on means of achieving greater productivity is being prepared by the council staff and made available to labour, management, educational institutions, and other groups interested in this vital task. In order to reach out to the grass roots of business, provincial and local productivity councils and committees have been organized across Canada.
The record, Mr. Chairman, I believe, is indeed impressive, and I would like to emphasize that I am mentioning only the highlights. The details are available for anyone who wishes to know them. I would encourage business and labour leaders to become familiar with them. Despite the tremendous job which the national productivity council is doing, the council cannot do it alone-it needs labour-management co-operation as well, and the help of Canadian universities is also most important. Labour and management are cooperating, and Canadian universities are also being very helpful.
The council has already forged some close links with our universities in its expanding program to foster and promote productivity. One of the strongest links is through its labour-management co-operation program. A series of national joint labour-management seminars is being sponsored by the council at Canadian universities. The first of these seminars was held last March, at Queen's university in Kingston. A second was held at Dalhousie University in Halifax in September. A third has already been planning at Saskatchewan university for next January, and plans are under way to hold a fourth in Quebec next spring. At these seminars, for the first time in Canada, top labour and management leaders are brought together to discuss their problems frankly with each other, away from the bargaining table, in a neutral university atmosphere. They talk together, eat together, and live together at the university. They learn to know each other better. Many of them, in fact, have been amazed to find that they are really not so far apart after all. This is a great contribution towards creating a better climate of labour-management relations by Canadian universities working with the national productivity council.
The success of these conferences can be attributed to the high calibre of the people attending and to the national stature and prominence of the speakers. The quality and usefulness of these conferences is typified by the program carried out at the Halifax meeting, and I think hon. members would be

interested in hearing something about it. At the plenary sessions of this meeting, the speakers included Professor W. Y. Smith, head of the department of economics and political science at the University of New Brunswick, and past chairman of the Atlantic provinces economic council, who spoke on the economic facts and their implications. Mr. Herbert H. Lank, president of Du Pont of Canada Limited, and Mr. William J. Smith, president of the Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers, discussed the subject of the problems of economic growth and productivity from the viewpoint of management and labour. Mr. Walter E. Duffett, dominion statistician, and Dr. S. A. Goldberg, assistant dominion statistician, gave talks on measuring productivity. Judge A. H. McKinnon of the province of Nova Scotia, chairman of the fact finding body on labour legislation, spoke on seeking a formula for industrial peace and collaboration. Also, during the plenary sessions, Mr. D. W. Ambridge, president of the Abitibi Power and Paper Company Limited, and Mr. J. A. D'Aoust, vice president and regional director of united papermakers and paperworkers, discussed labour-management co-operation at the industry and plant level.
One very important session at the Halifax meeting was the panel discussion on the findings of the national productivity council's mission to Europe on labour-management-government co-operation in European countries. Taking part in this discussion were Mr. R. V. Yohe, president of B. F. Goodrich Canada Limited; Mr. Jean Marchand, president, confederation of national trade unions; and Dr. G. V. Haythorne, deputy minister of labour, who is also a member of the national productivity council.
The announcement in the throne speech that a national economic development board would be established followed on the successful completion of the mission to Europe sponsored by the national productivity council. The members of the mission were drawn from the ranks of labour, management, education, and government. Organized labour was represented by Mr. William Dodge, executive vice president of the confederation of national trade unions. Mr. John D. Carroll, international representative and assistant to the Canadian vice president, international brotherhood of boilermakers, iron shipbuilders, blacksmiths, forgers and helpers; and Mr. Larry Sefton, director, district No. 6, united steelworkers of America. Management was represented by Mr. J. Herbert Smith, president of the Canadian General Electric Company Limited; Mr. Robert B. Yohe, president of B. F. Goodrich Canada Limited; and Mr. J. Claude Hebert, president, Transparent 27507-3-148
National Productivity Council Act Paper Products Ltd.; Dr. G. Edward Hall, president of the University of Western Ontario, represented educational institutions.
In each of the countries visited, the members of the mission held detailed discussions with leading representatives of national labour and management organizations; with government economic agencies; and with joint labour-management-government consultative bodies.
In sending this mission to Europe, the council believed that it was useful and desirable to have a better knowledge of the experience of other countries in undertaking economic activities intended to foster employment, and to achieve economic advancement. The mission visited Sweden, the Netherlands, West Germany, France, Belgium, and England, in investigating these matters. Following its return to Canada, its members prepared and published a very informative and useful report on European organizations, both governmental and private, which work toward economic expansion.
I regard the findings of this mission as being of the utmost importance. To a very large extent they confirm what this government has been attempting to do in fostering closer relations between labour, management and government. There is little doubt that labour, management and government co-operation in Europe has contributed greatly to the general prosperity in that area. It would be misleading, of course, to attribute the prosperity of Europe solely to this co-operation because many other factors have also contributed. Nevertheless, without close co-operation between the three key sectors of the economies of European countries, it is very doubtful that they would have achieved the amount of progress which has been possible.
While the policies and activities being implemented by the various countries visited by the mission showed differences, each had the same basic objective. In this regard the mission was impressed in each country with the spirit of co-operation which exists between labour, management and government, and the way in which they worked together in the national interest. There is little doubt that this co-operation has greatly contributed to the general prosperity of Europe. The determination of all key groups in each of these countries to achieve high levels of employment, economic growth, rising standards of living, and a healthy trading and balance of payments position, has made possible the recovery of Europe and the very impressive economic expansion in that area.
In view of the importance of having full labour participation in the productivity work, as evident by European experience, it is proposed to add to the council an additional
2322	HOUSE OF
National Productivity Council Act person from organized labour. In this regard, we are very hopeful that the Canadian Labour Congress will soon see its way clear to participate in this important work. We would welcome having Mr. Claude Jodoin rejoin the council, or having other top calibre members of the congress sit upon the council. If Canada is to support a sustained rate of economic growth it is essential that we too achieve the spirit of co-operation which is so apparent in key countries of Europe. Labour, management and government must pull together, each making a contribution to common objectives which are in the interests of all Canadians.
There is a growing realization in Canada that Canadians must produce more in Canada, and must purchase more domestic goods. We could not continue indefinitely to have the deficit in our current balance of payments which has prevailed since the end of the last world war. If, however, we are to produce and sell more in Canada, Canadian products must be competitive with goods made in other countries. Canadian manufacturers must produce the types of goods which buyers find it is in their interest to purchase, those which are efficiently produced, and are of competitive quality, design and price. In achieving these objectives, the national productivity council has a major role to play. If the economy is to grow and expand, the council must initiate the types of activities and programs which will help Canadian producers to be competitive at home and in export markets. The council has made an excellent start in focusing the attention of labour and management on these activities, and in bringing them together to exert a co-operative effort. Now that the council's initial period of planning and organization is behind it, its activities are having beneficial effects on an increasing scale.
Realizing the vital role which it has to play in stimulating Canada's growth, the council has been preparing its program for the future. Additional labour-management seminars are being planned in co-operation with the universities. Steps are being taken to organize labour-management forums on a systematic basis. The program of training courses in work study will be expanded, so that this valuable instruction will be available at universities in various regions of Canada. More work is being initiated with a view to encouraging greater industrial research. As the provincial and area councils and committees become increasingly better organized, systematic programs of material will be fed out to them to be used as the basis for local productivity activities. Studies will be undertaken of important activities in the fields of
[Mr. Hees.l

economics and the humanities which have a direct bearing on productivity.
The program is both vital and ambitious, and I feel sure that every Canadian will support it. I hope that it will receive the wholehearted endorsement and support of this House of Commons, so that the excellent work which was started a year and a half ago may proceed for the benefit of the country as a whole.


John Carr Munro: National Productivity Council Act Mission". They refer to the provisions of the National Productivity Council Act and go on to say:
The council has an important role to play in developing measures which will make a constructive contribution . to provide expanding opportunities for increased employment and trade and rising standards of living ..
On page 7 of that report there is a reference to the necessity for planning. Item 23 reads as follows:
The degree to which the countries visited plan their economic development varies greatly. It ranges from the French program of planning in relatively great detail over an extended period of years to the German system which leaves the market forces as the main guide to development.
All countries visited accept the necessity of some form of planning.
Now, I shall not go through all the other paragraphs in the report of this mission other than to point out that this council has indicated to the government in the report the need for planning. It has also recommended and advised the government that something must be done about the serious gap between management, labour and government consultation and co-operation in connection with providing Canada with the kind of plan which is necessary to bring us out of our economic doldrum. This government has not indicated that it intends to do anything about these recommendations under either the National Productivity Council Act or the economic development board.
I should like to point out a couple of other important subjects which I think should be dealt with, and the first is the question of overlapping. I believe that this is becoming increasingly serious, but I do not believe any spokesman for the government has indicated any constructive proposal which would clearly define the responsibilities of all these boards. The terms of reference of the national economic development board, as set out by the Minister of Finance, indicate that it plans to make proposals that cut across the whole range of financial and monetary policy and make constructive recommendations of a long range nature to the government. Almost identical terms of reference are set out for the national productivity council, at least the way the national productivity council itself interprets those terms of reference. This national productivity council has given notice to this government it intends to go into that very area during the forthcoming year. This afternoon we heard about the Atlantic development board which is presumably going into identical studies as the two other boards that have been set up, except that the work of this board will apply to a particular region. We have the national research council whose terms of reference closely approach the terms

of reference of all three boards. We have two programs under the defence research board. We have the Vocational Training Assistance Act under the Minister of Labour and the terms of reference of that legislation come well within those of the national productivity council and of these boards.
Presumably, if one listens to the comments coming from spokesmen for the government, all these bodies are to operate independently. Hon. members make general statements to the effect that it is hoped they will complement each other. However, they do not advise the Canadian public or the members of this house in a detailed way as to how all these various programs and boards plan to integrate their activities. There are so many boards now that I have even omitted one. As I look at the Minister of Labour, I recall he is recommending we establish a manpower adjustment board under the new legislation he plans to introduce. I believe the terms of reference of this body would fall within the terms of reference of not only the national economic development board but of this national productivity council.
I believe the government has an obligation to explain how they plan to avoid the collapse of this whole program for these boards in one hopeless mess of confusion which will bring further discredit to this country and which will probably mean our legislative program is again the laughing stock of the world, as has happened in connection with so many of the proposals of this government. When these various measures are discussed in the committee, the government should show in a detailed fashion how all the activities of these boards are to be integrated. This should be shown to the satisfaction of the personnel of the boards themselves and to the satisfaction of the Canadian people, so that the people will realize some constructive proposals will issue forth.
The Canadian public are not going to be satisfied with just a barebones explanation offered by this government for setting up a multiplicity of boards. The Canadian people and the members of this house want to know in a concrete way how the government plans these boards should operate so they will be co-operating. I think probably the most serious omission from the minister's speech when he introduced this amendment to the National Productivity Council Act was the omission of the word "planning". The productivity council dealt with this thoroughly, but the minister did not choose to mention it, did not choose to mention that he hoped the goals of this council would be the same as the goals of similar councils in western Europe and in other democratic nations that

have adopted these councils in the past. There should be a detailed plan of the economic goals for Canada that would be worked out by this council.
Apparently the government does not want that. Apparently the government is staying clear of that. If that be the case, then any concrete advantages that the efforts of this council may render the Canadian people are almost negligible because that is the whole purpose of the activities of this productivity council. In conclusion, I would say that the minister's comments indicate that the government has not dealt with the two main serious flaws in this legislation. This is the thing that has bothered the national productivity council all along. I refer to the terms of reference. Mr. Claude Jodoin resigned over that and, as I pointed out, the members of the council are not satisfied, as is indicated in the annual report. They want the terms of reference broadened so they can go into the economic measures necessary to increase productivity in a more comprehensive fashion. The government has not dealt with Mr. Jodoin's objection relating to the manner of representation, the manner of appointment. Until the minister is prepared to deal with all these problems, all we can say is this is just another board this government has set up to indicate that they plan to do something for the Canadian economy in the cheapest way possible, without going to work and developing long range policies of a concrete nature which are so badly needed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, one of the lessons I learned out of my African experience relates to a condition caused by an organism known as taenia solium. If one dose would not take care of it, take a half dozen. This evening, I could not help but think that is just what is happening here in this house. Certainly we have been witnessing a great proliferation of government boards. It was interesting, however, to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce speak about what a board has accomplished rather than to hear reference to what it is hoped a board will do.
I believe one board which has been set up by the government which has amply justified its existence is the national productivity council. I believe that the outline of some of the activities which have been carried on with a very meagre budget further confirms this conviction. The problem comes back to mind again: If this is what the national productivity council has done and is going to do, what in the world is going to be left for the national economic development board to do? Obviously they are going to overlap in many, many places. However, it is a matter of some encouragement to note the remarks of the
National Productivity Council Act minister, that there is going to be an overlapping of the membership structure of these boards. I trust that if this is going to be the pattern of the government it will soon mean the complete integration of the two boards. Certainly this is the only way either of them is going to be able to function effectively without getting in the other's way. Perhaps the greatest danger of overlapping of responsibilities is the fact that too often one board nullifies the potential objectives of the other. However, Mr. Chairman, I trust that with the appointment of these three additional members the way is being laid for these objectives to be achieved.
I believe it is our responsibility to give complete support to this resolution. I note with some satisfaction that the three additional members represent three very important aspects of our economy. I think the key to proper planning is not simply the laying down of some master plan from on top, but making it possible for people-this includes industry, labour and all aspects of organized activity and society-to co-operate and work with each other. We very often hear hon. members speak about the advantages of planning in Sweden, the Netherlands, West Germany or some other European countries. I do not think this has been accomplished because they have some super, master plan; it is simply because they have been able to get management and labour to co-operate with each other and with government in such a way as to enable them to make the progress which they obviously have made. They have done this simply by working out these problems in the very way the minister indicated some of the activities of the national productivity council have been carried on during the past year; that is, legitimate, grass roots planning. That is a different thing, though, than planning by a few sitting up at the top.
I think another very commendable aspect that has been brought to our attention this evening is that the work of the national productivity council is not going to be dependant upon a fixed budget passed on to them as their operating financial base. Any money invested in an organization such as the national productivity council as it performs its legitimate function is certainly the best kind of investment the government can make, and I think the suggestion that has been made will remove that bottleneck from the program and activities of the N.P.C. I believe this is good. The minister briefly outlined this evening some of the key features of the national productivity council. Again, I see a very definite overlapping with the summarized terms of reference, at least, of the national economic development board. I think all these points the minister covered are good. I was
2326	HOUSE OF
National Productivity Council Act particularly impressed with the report of the European work study group. However, none of these things is of any use unless it actually produces the action that will reach through to the objectives that are being talked about.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, just briefly stating our thinking in regard to this particular resolution, I would again draw to the attention of the committee the fact that we have several obvious problems as they relate to the objectives of the national productivity council and the national economic development board. We are the greatest importing nation on earth in that our per capita imports are nearly triple those of our nearest competitor in this respect. I think what we must do is this. The government must give responsible assistance in solving this problem. We must produce here in Canada many of those things which today we are importing from abroad. This will never be done in a period of austerity. If there is not capital, on one hand, available to do this-and this is a very critical problem this winter; it affects the question of unemployment and the desired growth rate which we want to see for our economy-then we cannot solve the problem. It is absolutely essential that easier credit be available. On the other hand there must be those incentives -this again comes back to our tax problems -that will encourage our people to produce those things which in too great quantities are imported today. Again, Mr. Chairman, I mention an illustration to which I think I referred a few weeks ago. A senior trade official from Japan who is in this country at the present time told me that he was not interested in importing textiles into this country; he was far more interested in importing heavy, modern equipment which would bring our own textile factories up to the standards they ought to have, in order that we can produce our own textiles.
Then, unless we can increase the effective demand of our home market, any increase in productivity will be nullified. Again, I would seriously say to the hon. members of the committee that unless we can make our own financial system work in such a way that it puts into the hands of our people the effective ability to use what they themselves produce, what is going to be the use of increasing our productivity at all? Herein lies one of the basic problems that we face. The government must give the help that is necessary in this regard, not through welfare but through a financial policy that will meet our needs today; not a financial policy that met our needs 50 or 100 years ago. We live in an age of potential plenty; this is an age of abundance. Unless we gear our policies, whether they refer to taxation, monetary reform or ;any other aspect of our economy, to this age


of abundance we are simply going from one problem to another and any number of boards will not solve the problem.
There is another point, Mr. Chairman, and I think this comes within the terms of reference of the national productivity council. The productivity which is surplus to our economy and to the legitimate needs of our own country must find its way into the hands of those people elsewhere in the world who do not have the abundance that is ours. But this, again, is part of the function and purpose of the national productivity council and I am convinced that it is synonymous with the responsibilities which we would attach to the national economic development board. Thus I believe that the resolution which has been placed before us is commendable and is deserving of our support, provided it does work towards solving these aspects of our problems to which I have just referred.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I simply rise in order to ask a question of the hon. member for Red Deer. 1 was particularly interested in one aspect of his address. He used the expression "tax incentives". Can he tell us what taxes he had in mind using in order to reduce Canada's dependence on imports from abroad?


Robert Norman Thompson: Our problem which today and over the years has been concerned with the abnormal size of our imports, exists simply because we are not producing in Canada many of the articles which we now import from outside. Most of them could be produced here in Canada. Because we are not doing this we are experiencing the financial crisis which faces us at the present time with regard to our trade in balances. Surely the hon. member would agree with me that there is no problem as far as resources in this country are concerned, either material or human. We have in our possession most of the material resources and I think we have some of the finest human resources that exist in the world. Neither is there any problem about capital as far as productive capital is concerned, because we have somewhat over $8 billion of capital right now in the saving banks and trust companies which is there gathering-


An hon. Member:: Dust.


Robert Norman Thompson: Dust. And it is earning only about half it could if it went to work producing and developing our own resources. One of the reasons this situation continues is simply because there is more profit investing in the deficits of our governments at guaranteed rates than there is going out and

developing our own resources. That is what is wrong with our economy today. We are tied to a debt system of deficit financing.
I would say to the leader of the hon. member's party that if the future of this country depends on more deficits there is something wrong with the Canadian people and those in this house who talk that way. What we further need is some tax reform-the removal of those taxes which restrict our credit, so that we can go ahead and develop our own resources and the production of those commodities which we are today importing and which we could use in far greater amounts than we do now.


Thomas Rodney Berger: The hon. member mentioned tax incentives, and that was why I asked him the question I did. But when he answered my question he used the words "tax reform". I wanted to know whether he had any tax incentives in mind-any specific measures by way of tax reform which he thought would relieve the situation he so ably described. I gather from his answer he really had nothing specific in mind.


Robert Norman Thompson: If the hon. member will take the time to read the platform-


Rémi Paul: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I think the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard goes far beyond the terms of the resolution. That is the reason why I asked the hon. member for Red Deer to keep his answer for another occasion.


Robert Norman Thompson: I was only about to say that if the hon. member would read our election platform from the last election he would have the answer.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member for Port Arthur.


An hon. Member:: Again.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to have that response. I was just trying to figure out where it came from.
It is apparent that the hon. member for Red Deer is bored with boards. I was going to suggest there was something else in the house which was almost revolutionary. I think the minister and others will want to join me in congratulating the hon. member for Essex East, the hon. member for Algoma East and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on the first indication that we have had in this house for a long time of the Liberal party's planning. They have finally put up one of their backbenchers as the first speaker on a resolution. I think that deserves a compliment and it is the first indication that planning has reached the Liberal caucus.
Business of the House
The minister's approach to this reminds me of a problem I encountered when I was trying to write a study a few years ago on football and its appeal to crowds. I sent to the United States and picked up a Ph.D thesis on the whole relationship of football and crowds. It was a long, carefully written thing, beautifully documented, and the summary came down to this-that in relation to football and crowds the football teams are not really important; it is the cheerleaders who really make things go.
In many ways there is quite an analogy for me in the approach of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He certainly seems to be the cheerleader and to feel that the exertions of the cheerleader are much more important than teams themselves which seem, in this case, to be management and labour. I certainly hope he gives us something more substantial in the future than just cheerleading with regard to this problem.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Hamilton East. Really, the whole point of his remarks seemed to centre around the fact that he would like to have Claude Jodoin back. However, Claude is a bit reluctant about it. I think I have a good idea why Claude does not think much of it. No matter how brilliant Mr. De Young may be, it was not too clever of the government to take a man who is president of an organization which has perhaps the brightest record in Canada of keeping out unions from its own organization-


Rémi Paul: Order. It being ten o'clock shall I rise and report progress?


Mr. Churchill:: Is there a chance of passing the resolution tonight? We could then consider the bill.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume the indication the minister gave last night of the business for Tuesday and Wednesday still stands but perhaps it would be convenient if he could indicate the order of the items.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will start with the bill based on the resolution dealing with the Atlantic development board, followed by the resolution on the productivity council which we have just been considering. The third item would be the committee stage of Bill No. C-64 relating to the Coal Production Assistance Act. Although Wednesday is a short day, if there is time we will take the item standing in the name of the Minister of Justice, No. 26 on today's order paper, the resolution dealing with two additional judges for

Business of the House the supreme court of Nova Scotia. Then there is item No. 21 in the name of the Minister of Justice dealing with an amendment to the Admiralty Act, and the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice, No. 22, dealing with the revised statutes of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to point out to the minister that those last three items were not on the priority list he gave last Thursday evening of the matters the government specially wanted to get on with before Christmas. Would the minister also indicate whether it is still the intention of the government on Thursday, regardless of what progress is made, to go on with the national economic development council legislation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 5, 1962