1962-11-27

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the second volume of the report of the royal commission on government organization entitled, "Supporting services for government" including therewith a statement of information and summary of the report furnished by the commission, the reports being in both languages.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding the north prairie regional air route.
The air transport board has made an extensive review of western regional air services. The board's report makes it clear that certain regional routes, including the present north prairie route, cannot operate on a self sustaining basis. The report also indicates that the volume of traffic from point to point is extremely uneven and that some points are not, in fact, making enough use of the air service to justify continuation; while at other points, although volume of use is not enough to cover losses on operation, nevertheless it is sufficient to indicate public need for and reliance upon the air service.
In the case of the north prairie route, the board reports that there is a continuing need for and community of interest in regard to air service between Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert, and that this segment of the route should be kept in existence. It also reported that the western segment of the route from Prince Albert onward to Edmonton is not carrying enough traffic to justify continuation and recommends the discontinuation of this segment of the route.
The present carrier, Pacific Western Airlines, has been asked whether it would be prepared to carry on the service Regina-Saskatoon-Prince Albert without subsidy but has replied in the negative. In the circumstances the matter has also been
discussed with the management of Trans-Canada Air Lines, which has indicated that it believes the Regina-Saskatoon-Prince Albert route could be integrated with its western services probably on a daily round trip basis, with very little adjustment on its part. T.C.A. management having expressed its ability and willingness, arrangements are being made for the granting of a licence for this route to T.C.A. The exact date for the grant of the licence and the plans of T.C.A. for operation have not yet been made final.
As far as can be seen at present, T.C.A. plans to operate this route with its own equipment and personnel. However, there may be a delay of a few weeks before this can take place; and in view of the desirability of maintaining continuity of service, the management of T.C.A. is presently engaged in discussions with Pacific Western to ensure that the latter is in a position to maintain service on the Regina-Saskatoon-Prince Albert route until T.C.A. is in a position to take over the licence and to operate itself. I have been assured by the management of T.C.A. that there will be no hiatus in the service.
I wish to pay tribute to the co-operative interest shown by T.C.A. in dealing with this problem, and the recognition of the requirements of public service which they have shown in their readiness to maintain this important route.
There remains the question of the south prairie route which was also dealt with in the air transport board report. I will shortly make a separate further statement on this matter.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the house will, of course, be interested in the statement the minister has just made because there has been some uncertainty in connection with this matter for some time. I would have hoped, and I am sure the house would have hoped as well, that the minister would take this opportunity to make a statement on the national air policy as well as the transcontinental air policy of the government.
The minister will remember that some time ago there was a question raised in connection with that matter by one of his own officers, and while I do not want to go into

Air Transport
it I just mention it in passing because I think many of us here would welcome a statement from the minister on these services. However, the minister has made a statement having to do with this particular prairie route arising out of studies made by the air transport board, and again I think the house would have welcomed a statement of policy in connection with regional air services. This has not been the case, but the government through the minister has made a statement concerning this particular service.
I suggest to the minister with respect that this decision, far from moving toward a national air policy, is again dealing with the matter by piecemeal surgery, as it were. Here is a company, and X speak now, of course, of Pacific Western Airlines, that has played an important part in the prairie economy, and the question that comes to mind is this. Why should we terminate a subsidy to a private concern which in five years has sustained almost $1 million in operating losses to prove the route, and instead hide the loss under the wing of public investment? T.C.A., of course, is going to take over this service, but from the evidence we received in another place this morning it is quite clear that there is going to be an operating loss for T.C.A. in this particular field. It seems to me it would have been much better to allow the regional carrier to carry on under the present circumstances in the hope that with increasing business it might have been possible in time to strengthen its financial position.
I think the minister should give an undertaking to the house that T.C.A., in taking over this service into Prince Albert, is not going to increase the cost to the taxpayer; because I have some recollection of what transpired in similar circumstances on a previous occasion. The minister will remember that when his predecessor in office, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, decontrolled certain air services because he then said that it was in the general interest of Canada, the financial position of the regional air carriers was made far worse than it had been. I am afraid that the situation here is going to be one which will hurt the regional air carriers, whereas in accordance with the Wheatcroft report the intention then, according to the expert of the government, was that these regional carriers would serve as feeders to assist the main line carriers.
I hope it will be possible for the minister to give consideration to the comments I have made.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I was
not here, I am sorry to say, to hear the Minister of Transport's statement. However, I

should like to ask him if he is now prepared to table or make available the findings of the air transport board in respect of their inquiry held in Regina about a year ago, so that individuals and organizations on the prairie routes may have an opportunity to study these findings and make their wishes known to the government.


Léon Balcer: I would be pleased to acquiesce in the request of my hon. friend but unfortunately this report is not a decision of the air transport board, but is a special report prepared for the government, and as such it is a privileged document.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: am sure the people served by this route from Regina to Saskatoon and Prince Albert will be pleased with the announcement by the Minister of Transport that this service is going to be maintained. There will be some regret that the line from Prince Albert to North Battleford and into Edmonton must be discontinued. I should like also to express my pleasure at the fact that since the present operator of this line from Regina to Prince Albert cannot operate without a subvention, the minister has announced that the service will be provided by Trans-Canada Air Lines.
I do not believe I can agree with the hon. member for Laurier. If the taxpayers of Canada are going to be called upon to pay a subsidy, I certainly believe that subsidy ought to be paid to a government owned and operated air line so that we will have some control of that subsidy and ultimately, if the line becomes a paying proposition, the taxpayers will receive the benefit.
I do agree that the question of these two lines raises the whole matter of the government's air policy. I express the hope, on behalf of this group, that the committee on railways, air lines and shipping will be given an opportunity to discuss the whole question of the government's air policy in order that we may have some clarification of it and in order that the minister may have an opportunity at an early date to put this whole question before the committee.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I address a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Will the minister say whether Canada is going to get a part of the new multimillion dollar United States jet fighter program, as announced in the press yesterday?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I learned with a great deal of pleasure that General Dynamics had obtained this contract from the United States government. I met recently with Mr. Lewis, president of General Dynamics, and this question was brought up between him and myself and officials of my department. If his company obtained this contract, consideration was asked by ourselves to consider Canadian participation in it. I understand that the first part of this contract consists mainly of engineering work, and there will really be no manufacturing of hardware for some months to come.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister care to comment on Premier Bennett's charge that he is interfering in the negotiations respecting the Columbia river treaty?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not believe it is quite in keeping with orders of the day and the traditions of this house that a minister of the crown should be asked to comment on charges or allegations made by some person outside the house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that the subject matter about which the hon. member wishes to get information is quite appropriate to orders of the day, but I am afraid his question is so badly worded that perhaps I should recognize another hon. member while he rephrases it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Well, Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is he interfering in the negotiations that are taking place between the premier of British Columbia and the United States authorities with respect to the Columbia river treaty?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, during the summer Premier Bennett requested that we arrange for informal discussions at a high official level between Canada, the United States and the province of British Columbia concerning the proposals for the development of the Columbia river. It was understood that these talks would be without
Inquiries of the Ministry commitment by any one of the three parties. Two such talks have been held and there is another scheduled for mid-December. They have been held in the best of good faith and on a constructive basis, and there can be no suggestion whatsoever that we have been undermining British Columbia.
If the reports in this morning's Globe and Mail are accurate then I can only say the charges are completely untrue and have all the earmarks of being an alibi.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We will get into an argument.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In the light of the announcement emanating from Canadair Limited last evening that 2,000 people are to be laid off between now and the beginning of next year, has the minister any plans to forestall this serious depletion of manpower?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Defence Production is continually endeavouring to sell the CL-44's which have not been sold. There are six of them left and as soon as they are sold and orders are received for new ones there will be work for the people engaged in that plant.


Lionel Chevrier: May I
address a supplementary question to the Minister of Defence Production. Has he been able to assist the Canadair company with the sale of the remaining six CL-44 freighter aircraft and thus maintain employment at its present level?


Donat Raymond: As announced some time ago, Mr. Speaker, my department is continually working with the Canadair people. We have prospects today of selling eight CL-44's, and we shall continue to work for the maintenance of the production of the CL-44's.
(Translation) :



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Cook (Monimagny-LTslei):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question? Could the right hon. gentleman

Inquiries of the Ministry tell us whether he received recent communiques concerning present troubles in India which might be of interest to the house? (Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what communique the hon. member is referring to. If he would elucidate further I would have some knowledge of what he is asking.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Cook: I was asking the Prime Minister whether he has other important communiques, from official sources, that might give us details about the troubles in India, either regarding possible requests made to the Canadian government or other similar things?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his explanation. There is very little to add to what I said previously on November 20. The Indian government has given the Canadian government a list of its requirements for additional assistance from Canada. This list includes quite a large number of Caribou aircraft and other aircraft, such as the Otter and the DC-3, a quantity of winter clothing and some industrial raw materials for use in defence production in India. The request is currently being studied, and when any decision has been arrived at between our two countries the house will be advised.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the announcement made by the United Kingdom government yesterday, as reported today, that arms and other material furnished India in the present crisis will be on a lease-lend basis, may I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any possibility of that procedure being pursued by Canada in our arrangements with India?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is one of those matters that are being canvassed.


INQUIRY AS TO PROSPECTS FOR IMPROVED WORLD UNDERSTANDING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of what is increasingly being called the milder international climate, would the minister give the house his views at this time of the prospects for an improvement in world understanding?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the 18 nation disarmament committee commenced its sittings yesterday at Geneva. So far we have only had reports of the statements made

by the representatives of the United States and the Soviet union. It is too early to say what the prospects are for some worth-while progress being made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to inform the house whether it has been confirmed that the Soviet union has been clandestinely conducting some nuclear testing up until November 20?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker. So far there has been no confirmation of that fact, and it would appear that the report, which apparently originated in Geneva, was inaccurate.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arlhur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the appropriate minister -perhaps it is the Prime Minister in this case-whether the government had any consultation in recent days with the board of broadcast governors before the ultimatum was given, which I believe expires today, to the C.B.C. in regard to carrying the Grey cup football game with commercials.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the board of broadcast governors in carrying out its responsibilities does not consult with the government. The government has not consulted with that board.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bellechasse asked me about the possibility of the government financing a paper mill in his area. The financing of the paper mill in Pakistan to which the hon. member referred is in fact financing for the extension of an existing mill in that country. This financing has been provided under the provisions of section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act, which provides long term financing for Canadian exports of capital goods in order to expand Canadian exports of these products and also to create greater employment for Canadians employed in capital goods producing industries.
On the other hand, in the Canadian domestic market Canadian businesses are usually

well able to raise their own financing for such developments. Other smaller firms, which find that they have difficulty in raising the necessary money through normal channels in Canada, are provided with means of doing so through the industrial development bank.
(Translation):


Mr. Dumont:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the agreement between Pakistan and communist China is as described yesterday in the press, does the minister believe that such a loan might help communist China?
(Text):


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. TRADE



REPORTED U.S. INTENTION TO RESTRICT IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question is based on a news report from Washington which indicates that the administration is about to restrict oil imports from Canada. Can the minister inform the house whether any negotiations are at present in progress between the United States and Canada to maintain our present level of exports of oil?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the government of the United States has been in touch with the Canadian government requesting that we engage in discussions about these matters. The Canadian government has assured the government of the United States that we would be only too willing to sit down and discuss all matters concerning oil with them at the earliest possible opportunity.
(Translation):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister report to the house concerning the accident involving a Cessna aircraft coming from Beauce which crashed at St. Jean de la Lande?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on the very night of the accident officials of my department made an investigation on the spot, but I have not yet received a report.
Inquiries of the Ministry (Text):	.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister consider taking action under section 1 of the Canadian Bill of Rights against the N.D.P. party of Manitoba, who propose to restrict the political action of another party in supporting the N.D.P.?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. gentleman communicate with his allies to get an answer on that matter.
(Translation):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Could the minister assure the house that no nuclear warheads are stored at the Bomarc launching base at La Macaza?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Labelle that there are no nuclear warheads at the Bomarc launching base at La Macaza.


Gaston Clermont: A supplementary question. Mr. Speaker. To reassure the people of the riding of Labelle, could the minister divulge what was being transported by the truck with American licence plates which was going in the direction of that base on Monday, November 19 last? As reported in the November 23 edition of L'Echo de la Lievre, a Mont Laurier weekly, the truck was accompanied by Canadian government vehicles and bore the sign "Danger-Explosives".


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member does not expect the minister to have that information on hand. I would therefore suggest that he put his question on the order paper.
(Text):



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct an inquiry to the Prime Minister. Further to my question of a week ago today, has he been able

Interim Supply
to ascertain whether there is a letter from the premier of Manitoba subsequent to the one tabled on February 6 regarding the position of that province with respect to the proposed amendment to the British North America Act regarding contributory pensions?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, an examination has been made of the files and there was a personal, private and confidential letter. That must be the one to which the hon. gentleman alludes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I just have a minute to point out that the letter which was tabled-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute-merely said that the matter would be looked into and that there would be a report later. My point is that parliament does not have any communication saying that Manitoba is in agreement with the proposal, and I think that to have the record complete something should be on the pages of Hansard to that end.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I should be allowed to answer my hon. friend. His question is a very reasonable one. When I looked over the files and found that the only other letter was one in my personal files marked private and confidential, I communicated with the premier of Manitoba and asked him to give a decision so that it can be filed along with the other letters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the Prime Minister. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $449,473,276.60 being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except atomic energy item 5, finance item 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40, legislation items 30 and 35, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources item 10, public works items 5, 45, 125, 190 and 200, Royal Canadian Mounted Police items 5 and 25, loans, investments and advances item L-20, $303,189,049.67;
(b)	an additional two twelfths of the amounts of public works items 145, 168 and 170, transport items 35, 222 and 225, of the said revised estimates, $3,652,166.67;
(c)	an additional one twelfth of agriculture items 25, 100 and 160, finance item 45, northern affairs and national resources items 30, 50, 55, 85, 90, 95 and 100, public works items 10, 20, 115, 120, 140 and 150, transport items 55, 100, 125 and 185, loans, investments and advances item L-70, of the said revised estimates, $12,122,533.34;

(d)	nine twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (A), for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $121,079,360.25;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of external affairs item 112a, transport items 213a and 222a, of the said supplementary estimates (A), $9,430,166.67;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I enter the debate on this question of interim supply purely for the purpose of making an appeal to the government with regard to the carrying on of the business of the house. Yesterday the Prime Minister sought to place upon the opposition groups the responsibility for whether or not this is a productive session, and he made statements at that time which it seems to me are astounding comments coming from him or from any other prime minister.
One of his first comments concerned the sitting hours of this house. It seems to me a strange thing that any person with the long years of experience the Prime Minister has had should leave the impression with the general public that members of parliament who are engaged in their parliamentary duties are so engaged for something less than 30 hours a week. As a matter of fact the hours which this house sits are comparable with the hours which all other legislative groups sit, both in this country and in other countries. Hon. members know, although unfortunately the public does not always know, that the hours of sitting in the house are only part of a member's duties. Hon. members also have to spend time in their offices answering mail, carrying on research, visiting various departments, taking up the problems of their constituents and attending the meetings of the committees of this house.
I	think the impression which was left yesterday that members are on a sort of holiday here was a very unfortunate impression to be left by the Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, many members of this house spend
II	or 12 hours a day in this building, and the problem we face is not going to be solved simply by extending the hours of sitting.
The Prime Minister also mentioned yesterday the matter of long question periods. I was rather intrigued with his comment about the old days when he and I sat in the house as private members, and when there were only two or three questions. If my recollection serves me aright, the Prime Minister himself never asked less than two or three questions on orders of the day, and I will say that he was very good at it.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that a whole host of questions are asked but that not one in a carload would embarrass the government. I did not know that was the

purpose of asking questions. That may have been the purpose of the Prime Minister in asking questions when he was in opposition, but I would point out that if the question period has grown, and it has, it is largely because members have not been able to get the opportunity to raise many pressing problems which are confronting their constituents, problems which they could raise with the minister concerned if we got on to the estimates. For instance, the Prime Minister said yesterday that we have spent two days on the agriculture estimates. The first day consisted of an hour and a quarter from 3.45 p.m. until 5 p.m. The second day consisted of from 11.45 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 2.30 p.m. to 5 p.m. This totals something in the neighbourhood of five hours spent on agriculture estimates, and that is the only department whose estimates have been considered and on which hon. members could ask questions. There are a host of problems, and hon. members may wait weeks or months before certain departments will come up.
Questions have been asked, too, because there are a great many important issues before the country on which there has been no opportunity for members to ascertain the government's policy, and about which the people of Canada want to know what the government intends to do; and the members of this house have the right to know this, as has the public.
I hope the impression does not go throughout the country, as a result of the Prime Minister's statement, that nothing is being done in this house. He spoke of their having 29 pieces of legislation ready. As a matter of fact I think some 43 pieces of legislation have either been passed or are somewhere in the process of being dealt with by this house. When the Prime Minister talked yesterday about a limited number of days being available for government business, my mind went back to the days when the House of Commons used to take six weeks and more on the speech from the throne and three or four weeks on the budget. The fact that the time has been limited now to ten days on the speech from the throne and nine days on the budget certainly gives a great deal more opportunity for business to be carried on.
I wish to say this, Mr. Chairman, and I am here making a plea to the government. If the business of the house is not progressing as quickly as it ought to progress, the government itself must accept the major part of the responsibility. I rose simply for the purpose of making a suggestion and it is this. A great many problems which are of concern to the members ought to be referred to committees of this house. The committee on estimates
Interim Supply
could deal with some of the departments. There is no reason why 264 or 265 members should be tied up here on some department which has interest to only a certain group of members-let us say the fisheries estimates or estimates that apply to a limited number- when by sending these estimates to a committee where the members vitally concerned could question the minister and get the answers they desire, parliament could be saved a great deal of time.
In our opinion the drug act, for instance, could have gone and should still go to a committee of the house. It would have saved a great deal of time in the house if that act had gone to a committee and it would still save a great deal of time if that act went there, where the members who are concerned about this problem could discuss it with the minister, his officials and, if necessary, the representatives of the pharmaceutical houses.
A good deal of time has been taken during this session by members in one way or another trying to raise this very vexing problem regarding the conflict between the board of broadcast governors and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Again time could have been saved by having set up the committee which is responsible for looking into the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The committee at that time could have called before it the chairman of each of these two bodies and any other persons they had in mind. It could have looked into this matter. If the government and the minister concerned tell us that they have no jurisdiction, then certainly parliament has some responsibility. A committee of parliament could have looked into this matter and could have tried to resolve it. Instead of that procedure, members have been frustrated in trying to deal with a problem which to them is important, as to many of us this looks like an undermining and a weakening of the role which the publicly owned and publicly sponsored broadcasting organization is supposed to play in this country.
The same thing is true with reference to labour legislation. Some of the labour legislation which is before the house or is likely to be before the house could go to a committee, where those who are particularly interested would have an opportunity to discuss it. With regard to the matter we were discussing this afternoon, namely the matter of government air policy, the same thing is true.
One of my colleagues yesterday made reference to the matter of defence. There is in Canada today a great deal of concern about nuclear weapons and what our nuclear policy is. One minister indicates it might be one

Interim Supply
thing and another minister indicates it might be something different. Just a week or ten days ago an under secretary of state for the United States, speaking to the parliamentary group at the NATO conference, said that the United States is now prepared to consider steps to make NATO a nuclear power. This is a matter of vital concern to the Canadian people. Members cannot be expected to wait the weeks or months that may elapse before the defence estimates come up for consideration. They have no other way in which to raise this matter or to show their concern except either by asking questions on the orders of the day or by introducing a motion to adjourn the house in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. But a committee on defence, where the minister and his officials could outline in detail to the members of that committee the government's defence policy and their program would help to save a great deal of time in this house.
I have a matter which I have been wishing to raise for a long time. I am not going to raise it now, though I would be perfectly within my rights in doing so. However, I do not wish to hold up this interim supply measure. Nevertheless, I am saying to the government that unless there is some opportunity to discuss it, I shall have to take the first opportunity which presents itself, even though it means holding up interim supply at some later date.
I am referring now to the abandonment of branch lines which is taking place at such a rapid rate on the prairies. The report of the royal commission on transportation, for instance, said there are 4,300 miles of light density lines in Canada, the greater part of which is in the western area. The vice president of the C.P.R. when appearing before the royal commission stated that in the prairies there are about 2,500 miles of branch lines that will of necessity be candidates for abandonment. This is a real cause for concern. If it were only a projected abandonment the situation would not be so bad. However, at the moment in the province of Saskatchewan alone there are six lines the abandonment of which has been either approved or is pending, covering some 180 miles. Last year approval was given to abandoning the line from Wolseley to Reston on which one of the grain companies had just the previous year completed a large terminal elevator. As to some of these lines with respect to which application has been made, the lines have been built within the last two years.
I think members are concerned about this matter, and they have a right to ask the government to give some heed to the recommendations of the MacPherson commission,

which said that if we are going to have a policy of abandonment it should be stated well in advance so that business people and the general public could lay their plans accordingly; that there should be a period of five years between the time the plan was issued and the time the abandonment took place; and that some policy of compensation ought to be worked out for those adversely affected.
What concerns the members from the prairies is the fact that the abandonments are proceeding. Applications are being made and in some cases are being granted. However, the over-all policy has not been announced and has not been implemented. The result is that when the policy is finally announced we may find that several of these lines have already been abandoned and the service discontinued.
I am not going to take the time of the committee to deal with this very time consuming problem. I know the Minister of Finance wants to get this resolution through, and I am prepared not to press it at this time. I simply raise it as an illustration of one of the kinds of problems that members must raise. If the government were prepared to send this kind of matter to a committee of the house, in this case the committee on railways, air lines and shipping, it would take much of the pressure off the house and would give members an opportunity to raise matters which are affecting their constituents without having to resort to lengthy question periods and to motions on going into supply or motions to adjourn the house to discuss matters of urgent public importance.
All I want to say is that we in this group are just as anxious as any other group in the house to press on with the business of the house, but I submit to the Prime Minister with great respect that the way to achieve that is not to suggest to the opposition that our best contribution is just to button our lips and let the government put through everything.


Mr. Jones:: He never said that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not the contribution the opposition can make. The opposition have a responsibility here.


Mr. McCleave:: He did not say that at all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member can interpret what the Prime Minister says.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I listened and you listened too.


Henry Frank Jones: He said that was what he was not doing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly my interpretation of what the Prime Minister said was that if

we get everything else out of the way we will get on with legislation. The only way we can get on with legislation is to hurry through the estimates and hurry through interim supply without taking up some of the vitally important issues I have been mentioning this afternoon, and we cannot do that. Many of these issues are of vital concern to the people we represent. Take the matter of surcharges. If the government had sent this to the banking and commerce committee or if the government had brought in legislation to deal with it forthrightly, we would not have had a great many of the prolonged debates that have taken place at various times.
All I am urging is that the government recognize that while they have definite responsibilities, and we appreciate that, opposition members also have responsibilities to examine these expenditures, to see to it that the government is complying with the law, to see to it that matters which vitally affect this country and the people who dwell therein are brought to the attention of the government. These are our responsibilities, and we think we can best discharge those responsibilities if the government, instead of talking about longer hours, will talk about a more efficient handling of the business of parliament by referring many of the detailed questions and many of the questions which affect only certain groups of members and certain parts of Canada to the standing committees or to special committees. I think the committees of the house could be used to far better advantage than they are being used now.


Mr. Churchill:: You don't know anything about them. You are 20 years out of date.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Veterans Affairs says I do not know anything about the committees. Since I have come here I have checked very carefully what these committees are doing. I have already pointed out- if the minister wants to prolong the debate it is fine with me-that the committee on broadcasting has not been set up. We have been given no opportunity to discuss the whole question of broadcasting. The banking and commerce committee has discussed nothing except a couple of insurance company incorporations, when it could have been discussing the whole question of surcharges. If the minister wants, I will go down the whole line of these committees and show that they have not been given work to do and have not been made use of, and he as leader of the government in the house must accept the major responsibility for this. If he thinks I am 20 years out of date, I should like to tell
Interim Supply
him that the house was run better 20 years ago than it is being run under his supervision today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When it spent six weeks on the speech from the throne.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but they got more done.


Henry Frank Jones: How can you get work done during the speech from the throne debate? How can you get legislation passed?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The only time the hon. member for Saskatoon seems to talk is when he is sitting down.


Henry Frank Jones: I can still say things of more significance sitting down than you can standing up, judging by the speech you are making.


Mr. Peters:: This is his first speech this year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I presume it is only when he is sitting that he gets concussion of the brain. Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to get into a wrangle-


Henry Frank Jones: It is your brain that must be getting "concussed" then.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not get up to get into a wrangle with members on the government side, but they seem unusually sensitive. I am saying that we in this group are prepared to give our co-operation-


Mr. McGrath:: That is a change.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -in promoting the business of the house. We say to the Prime Minister that the answer does not lie in longer hours of sitting of the House of Commons but in better use of the committees of the house, and if the leader of the house and the government will allocate more work to the committees we are convinced that we can make more progress and we will assure the government of our co-operation in that direction.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Cook: If I may be allowed, I would have a few remarks about the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker).
The Prime Minister was disappointed that so much time had been lost since September 27 last, and that so few of our country's problems had been solved.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am in complete agreement with the right hon. gentleman. Being a new member of this house, I do not always agree with him, but this time I share his views.

Interim Supply
As a new member, I am actually disappointed at the lack of seriousness in this house. I thought the House of Commons was a place where the elected members of parliament met to work, not to fool around.
As for the complaints of the Prime Minister regarding the overlong period taken up by questions on the orders of the day, I must say, that if some hon. members on this side of the house often had many questions for the government, it was simply because they are disappointed with the slowness of this government in making any progress with measures meant to solve the current problems of the country.
We are truly disappointed because two bills only have been adopted since the beginning of the session.
We are disappointed also to find that the speech from the throne contained very few things of interest to the Canadian people, just like the revised budget, and the debate on that matter resulted in an enormous waste of time.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the present government must not be held wholly responsible for that because, since September 27 I have heard several speeches which had nothing to offer except eloquence.
I am of the opinion that if all the members, including the Liberals, would only talk seriously and offer constructive solutions instead of indulging in idle criticism and making eloquent speeches that do not mean anything, the sessions would not last seven, eight and even nine months, but that in three months, we would have completed what appears on the order paper. Then we would really have worked in the interest of the Canadian people.
Mr. Chairman, all day yesterday, we heard the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Laurier assure the Prime minister of their full support in getting on with the business of the house. Well, they were the first to waste the time of the house for hours.
When we really start to work in the interest of the people and not in the interest of a party, or only to make some political capital, then we will really succeed in completing the business that appears on the order paper.


An hon. Member:: I hope you are not taking yourself seriously.
(Text):


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I am in agreement with the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet when he says he is very seldom in agreement with the things the Prime Minister proposes. I, too, find myself in that category. It may well be,

however, that his thoughts were translated incorrectly and if so, then I apologize.
In any event, I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and others who have dealt with this question of what parliament should be doing, how it should be approaching its business, reached the nub of the question when they made reference to the employment of our standing and special committees of the house. It is in this context that I should like to express a few thoughts about what parliament might do in the coming days to speed up or streamline consideration of some of the matters which will be before us.
I recall when the government was elected in 1958, with its massive 208 members, the Prime Minister made extensive reference to the necessity of putting the committees of parliament to work. We had, as members will recall who participated in them, committees meeting morning, noon and night. In some cases hon. members had to attend two or three committee meetings at the same time. There was a desire expressed by the Prime Minister four or five years ago to have the committees function to promote the conduct of parliamentary business in a proper manner. I feel those same views should hold true today, but we do not see that desire exemplified in processing matters through parliament and getting them to the particular committees.
I remember that when I was in the provincial legislature in British Columbia-and I believe the hon. member who is now here from Vancouver South was also in the legislature at that time and participated in some committees with me-one of the long standing practices there was to refer all municipal matters to a municipal affairs committee. All parties were represented on that committee, and the work of the legislative assembly in respect of municipal matters was done in the committee. When the committee reported to the house there was relatively little discussion, apart from general representations and comments by one member from each party. In this way the time the legislature spent in dealing with municipal legislation was relatively small, because the actual work had been done beforehand in the committee. I believe the same thing could very easily hold true here.
I should like to give one example of a subject matter that I think could be referred, and I hope will be referred, to a committee. I am pleased to note that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is here, because the subject deals with his department. In the last few years, particularly since the end of the war, we have seen a great increase in the movement of people in the world. We

have seen great advances in communications and in transportation to the point where our world, in one sense, is getting smaller and smaller. This greater movement of people in the world creates problems for different countries in so far as their immigration laws are concerned. Canada has not been exempted from problems in this particular field.
There is the whole question of the necessity to expand our industrial base in this country, and the consequent need to have a large enough population to enable industry to expand. This problem comes into conflict sometimes with the attitudes of governments in respect of immigration, the number of people who can come to Canada, the countries from which they can come and so on. We have the whole question of the relationship between immigration and employment possibilities which has been in a confused state for quite a long period of time, extending even beyond 1957. We have the question of the continual promises by this government concerning amendments to the Immigration Act, none of which have yet been implemented. However, these promises cause concern amongst the members here and cause questions to be asked in the house.
There is the whole question of the structure of our citizenship act; our attitude toward the number of people who have been deported and the number of these orders for deportation which have not been executed, about which I asked the other day. There is a sessional paper on this matter which indicates that almost 5,000 people have been ordered deported since 1957, but there are more than 1,500 of these orders which have not been executed. There is the question of the reasons given for the failure to execute these orders. This is something which it is highly desirable we should get into, become involved in and about which we should ask questions. In what better place could this happen than in a committee of this house which the departmental officials can attend?
There is the entire field of the investigation into the alleged illegal entry of Chinese people into this country, which investigation was abandoned just a few days ago. We have the whole question of the impact of that investigation upon the rights of citizens in Canada, and the question of the long delays which were experienced by people of Chinese origin applying for citizenship. Some of them had to wait two or three years before then-citizenship papers came through, even though they had passed the examination. There is the question of the two way approach to immigrants coming from Italy, which came to light a year or two ago. There is the question of refugees coming to this country
Interim Supply
and the question of tubercular patients coming from other countries and being treated here.
Then there is the whole question of the department of Indian affairs and its attitudes, which was dealt with to some extent in the joint committee on Indian affairs which met for three years. The opportunity for this committee to go into departmental estimates and policy was not available, however, because the committee was concerned with briefs and presentations by groups of people from outside. Nevertheless the whole field of Indian affairs is another very important subject matter with which I think a committee should deal.
As a result of asking members who have been here for quite a number of years, I find that none of them can remember when the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration were referred to a committee for study. Perhaps that might have been the case 20 or 25 years ago, but so far as I am able to determine not since that time have these estimates been referred to a committee. I believe they should be, because it is in committee that we can inquire into the questions I have enumerated, and many more also. After all, we have a new minister, so let us have a new approach. Let us send this particular subject matter to a committee, and when that committee reports to parliament perhaps there will be relatively short discussion in the house, as has been the case when other departmental estimates were referred to committees.
One case which supports that contention is the estimates for the Department of Fisheries. For two successive years they were sent to a committee, and that happened since this government took office. We went into the estimates extensively in the committee and discussed all relevant matters with the officials. Then when the estimates came before the house, in committee of the whole, there were just very brief statements from members in each party and the estimates were passed without great delay.
I believe this should be done with the estimates for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and that we should deal with such matters in the manner so ably outlined by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I hope his suggestions will be accepted by the government as a desirable course to follow rather than trying to legislate by exhaustion, as was outlined by the Prime Minister yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not wish to extend the portion of the debate in which I took part yesterday but there is one question I would like to put to the Minister of Finance. One of the points he sought to make last night

Interim Supply
was that he had not seen the question and answer to which I made a number of references yesterday. As a matter of fact that question and answer are now on Hansard in several places, and I might point out that my quoting of it, as reported at page 2006 of yesterday's Hansard, conforms exactly with the wording of the question and answer as they appear on page 1995 of Hansard.
The question had to do with the manner in which the Department of National Revenue is keeping the records pertaining to the surcharge on imports order. My question today is simply this. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to look at that question in black and white, has he anything further to say by way of assuring the house that the provisions of section 22(8) of the Financial Administration Act will be kept?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think I might deal with that particular matter myself, as it covers two departments. However, before doing so I want to say to hon. gentlemen who participated in this discussion yesterday afternoon and today that all of them made an excellent contribution to a subject that is near and dear to hon. members in all parts of the house, namely the assurance that to the greatest extent possible parliament shall operate effectively and efficiently.
There was a suggestion made that if there were an extension of the hours that would be legislative consideration by exhaustion. I would simply point out the fact that in the United Kingdom parliament the sitting starts in the afternoon at either two o'clock or two thirty and runs through the period from six to eight o'clock, while we adjourn for dinner, and continues until adjournment, which is not automatic.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They have a much larger house, of course.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They have a much larger number of members.


John George Diefenbaker: That is true, but between six and eight o'clock there is a kind of unwritten law that hon. members have an opportunity of dealing with those things they desire to place before the house, and no votes are called at that time because the attendance is not such as would be conducive to a fair and proper declaration of the house's intention on any matter.
1 listened with interest to the suggestion that more should be done on the part of the government in placing these questions in the hands of committees. As one hon. gentleman pointed out, I had that view myself. I endeavoured to bring that about, and I was

criticized as strongly as it was possible for anyone to be criticized on a matter that should have been the least provocative of criticism. We found that the opposition members took a strong stand against committee work. At that time their objection was that they had insufficient members to man the various committees.
However, as one looks back over the matter I think one can agree with Mr. Mackenzie King who, on one occasion when approached by the opposition of which I was a member in the early days, in the 1940's, said that the committee system is not in keeping with the British tradition of government or the parliamentary system. I did not hold that view, and when I became Prime Minister I endeavoured to expand and extend the committee system; but on the basis of experience, and speaking as dispassionately as I can, I must say I am not at all as certain today as I was in 1958 that the committee system is the system to adopt under our parliamentary plan of government.
However, we have all shown a most desirable support of the objective of making parliament more effective and getting on with the business. It has always been the case since the forties, and I cannot go back beyond that, that for the first six, eight or nine weeks of a session it has been virtually impossible to secure the passage of very much legislation, and that trend has been intensified in consequence of the changes that were made. We endeavoured to improve the situation by holding meetings of the rules committee in successive years and, while there were a number of reforms brought in, I think in certain particulars it will be agreed that the result was to make the rules more inflexible and bring about the very antithesis of the objective that all hon. members had in mind.
I shall not go over again what I referred to yesterday in connection with the legislative program. Certainly one of the difficulties is to so organize-and that difficulty becomes intensified with the increased number of parties-the house that attention may be given to some of the problems that were referred to this afternoon in a very fair discussion of the subject by the leader of the New Democratic party.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Say "socialist."


John George Diefenbaker: I did not want to use the initials because I am liable to make a mistake. However, with this general consensus of agreement I think the first step I shall take as soon as the Leader of the Opposition returns is to call together, if they will agree, the leaders of the several parties and determine on an agreement for the apportionment of the balance of the time between now and the

Christmas recess on the matters that we feel should be brought before the house, and in particular the matters of legislation that are on the order paper. I think if we confer together in this regard, in the spirit which was advanced in such commendable fashion yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier, we will be able to arrive at a basis for allocating an appropriate amount of time for the various matters that yet have to be dealt with before the Christmas recess.
All of us are agreed that we cannot afford to allow parliament to be hamstrung by the rules. Rules have their place. Rules are necessary in order to secure reasonable application to the business of parliament. But there are times when, considering the gigantic job that faces Canadians today-and we can apply this principle-the leaders of the various parties, in that spirit of co-operation which has been shown during the discussion in the last day, may bring about an agreement whereby we shall assure that the business to be done is done between now and Christmas. I am not going to look ahead beyond March or April, but I would think by that time we will be able to cover practically the entire legislative program that we intend to present to parliament in order to deal with not only the present but also the future. Mr. Chairman, I do not like looking beyond a period of five or six months, but I do look ahead that far.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You may be looking too far now.


John George Diefenbaker: I would say to the hon. member that if I had been looking at some of the opposition leaders I would only have looked ahead one week, but I do not belong to that school. Nobody will think I am being provocative when I say that the predictors of August and September are today more silent than they were at that time.


Mr. Boulanger:: Thanks to Social Credit.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is an occasion for great humility.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have great admiration for the hon. member for Essex East. I seem to remember some of his prophecies and I can tell you, on the basis of past experience, never to rely on any prophecies that emanate from the hon. member.
Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who raised this matter yesterday, I think he will have noticed on my part an immediate reaction. I just could not understand the circumstances connected with the answer in question, and I had this matter looked into. I am going to place before the committee the record as it is. Yesterday the hon. member asked a question, which is to be found at page 1995 of Hansard, dealing with remissions of customs 27507-3-130
Interim Supply
duties under the provisions of section 2 of the surcharge on imports order, P.C. 1962902. The answer was as follows:
The information requested is not available as detailed statistics are not maintained pertaining to the application of the surcharge on imports order. To present a complete answer would entail a careful examination of approximately 2,205,235 import entries passed at 276 ports of entry in Canada.
1 would point out that the applicable section of the Financial Administration Act, section 22(8), reads as follows:
A statement of each remission of one thousand dollars or more granted under this section shall be reported to the House of Commons in the public accounts.
That has been the course in the past. In order to ascertain what has constituted compliance with this requirement, the public accounts for the last 15 years have been carefully examined. Prior to the passing of the Financial Administration Act in 1951 it was the duty of the Auditor General, under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to report remissions to parliament, but there were no upper or lower limitations based on the amounts of the remissions. As a matter of practice the Auditor General reported only those exceeding $1,000. In cases of a general remission applicable to classes of goods and not in terms of individual importers, he simply recorded a statement describing the nature of the remission and quoted the authority for it. The Financial Administration Act of 1951 incorporated the Auditor General's method of reporting and required the same kind of information he had been reporting to be henceforth included in the annual public accounts.
If hon. members will examine the public accounts they will find that this house has accepted the listing of remissions in excess of $1,000 which have been to the relief of individuals or corporations, but has made a distinction throughout the years between these and remissions of a general character extending to a broad sector of the community or to a particular commodity or class of commodities destined to a particular use in the public interest. In this latter case the house has accepted a statement-and I emphasize the word "statement"-as seems to be called for by the Financial Administration Act; that is, a statement giving the nature of the general remissions and the authority under which they were made effective. Obviously this statement is required because such broad remissions normally exceed $1,000. Besides the repeated acceptance by the house of this method of complying with the act, there has been equal acceptance by the committee on public accounts.

Interim Supply
Apart from the fact that the requirements of the statute can reasonably be interpreted and applied as they have been over the years, and that during this time the house has accepted the practice followed, there are eminently sound practical reasons for the practice adopted.
The present instance is one of a remission of a portion of import surcharges on broad classes of commodities. The Financial Administration Act, section 22(2), provides that a remission may be partial, conditional or unconditional and may be granted in any particular case or class of case and before the liability therefor arises. In practice this means that customs officers, where remission applies before the liability arises, do not make an assessment of the full levy that would have applied and then deduct the remission. They simply go straight ahead and take the net figure. To do otherwise would entail a tremendous amount of unnecessary work. Where, of course, the remission is an individual one and expressed in a sum certain, the calculation is made in detail, as it is in the case of a remission by way of a refund.
When I heard this matter raised yesterday I immediately went into this question, because there is one thing above everything else that must be upheld in the house; that is, the right of hon. members to information. That is something that, as the leader of this house, I will insist upon at all times. Because of that, when the hon. gentleman raised this matter I immediately secured the fullest information on the subject so as to ascertain the reason for this answer and to also ascertain whether or not it was of an unusual type. I recognized immediately that some would say there was an endeavour to conceal, and that the reason for that answer was that the government or the department had something to hide. However, I found- and I am glad to be able to report to the committee that I did-that in no case since 1951, when it became a matter of statutory enactment, and prior to that on the basis of the Auditor General's reports, had any other course been followed.
I am not hiding anything, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. gentleman or any other hon. member wishes to make a motion for information in this regard, we have nothing to conceal and the information will be furnished. But I want him, and everybody else who moves a motion, to recognize these facts: that to examine the records and list individual importations and individual importers will require over 125,000 man hours at a cost of $400,000 to $500,000. In addition to that, for the examination, segregation and listing of current entries, the cost would run at least from $80,000 to $85,000 a month. If the house wants

to do this and wishes to depart from what has been the practice in the past, then this government intends to accept its wishes, as it always should in the interests of sound parliamentary government. We have nothing to conceal. I will leave it to the house, and I will leave it to the hon. gentleman whether he feels that we should in this case, because of the circumstances under which this item in question came into existence in June last by order in council, under the authority of parliamentary practice, furnish this information. But I want him and anyone associated with him to recognize that it is a departure from the practice of the past, and what the cost will be to the treasury in consequence. In principle the present remission of surcharges is in the nature of a ceiling on import surcharges, applicable from the time of their imposition, on certain duties or classes of duties. The remission is of wide application and is not based on the relief of any particular organization, firm or individual.
Having placed that before the committee, if the hon. gentleman-he need not make a decision now-and those associated with him, and the house, wish the production of something that has not been asked in the past, then because of the particular circumstances under which this came into existence under the exchange order in council of June 24, 1962, the government will certainly comply. We do not want anyone to believe that there is anything being concealed; but I will point out that to follow that course is a tremendously costly procedure. As I have said, it will cost almost half a million dollars and will, in addition, cost $85,000 a month. I leave myself and the government entirely in the hands of the house, because we are not going to have it said that we concealed anything in connection with this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to. thank the Prime Minister for entering into this discussion and for giving us such information as he has. If I may say so, this is the first time in this session of parliament that we have been given any detail at all as to what was in the government's mind with regard to the surcharge on imports order. I think a great deal of tune could have been saved if we had had discussions such as this, and more, much earlier in the session.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister indulges in something which I have seen happen in this house before. He suggests that a private member is asking information the obtaining of which is going to cost many thousands or many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and therefore the onus is put on that private member whether or not he wants to

have his question pursued. May I make it very clear that the cost of obtaining this information is not occasioned by the question I put on the order paper. My question has been answered; Mr. Speaker would so rule. The cost of obtaining this information is occasioned by section 22(8) of the Financial Administration Act, which in my view requires the government to obtain and to give the information in the public accounts. The only difference between my question and the law is that I asked for the information now for a three or four months period, whereas the law requires that this information be given at the end of the fiscal year in the public accounts.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon.
gentleman whether he has looked at the public accounts? Has he seen them? He has them before him and can read right from them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the Prime Minister for giving me the chance to draw attention to this. As I say, my point is that it is the law which requires this to be done, only the law requires it to be done after the end of the fiscal year instead of at this particular point in time. The Prime Minister said that in order to ascertain what the law means one must look to see what the practice has been-if I do him any injustice in putting it that way, he can correct me. He said that the records have been checked since 1951. I have not checked every year, but I have checked a good many of them. The Prime Minister said that on checking the records he found only in certain kinds of instances are the individual items given. What I have before me are the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1961, and in them are a long list of items over $1,000 remitted under the provisions of section 22 of the Financial Administration Act with respect to the Department of National Revenue. It is also true, as the Prime Minister has said, that there are a number of instances, a dozen or so, on pages 37-5 and 37-6 of this volume where there is merely a recital of an order in council that authorized remissions in certain particular classes or cases. For example, P.C. 1959-15/1504, November 11, 1959, authorized the remission of excise duty sales and excise taxes on cigarettes purchased by the province of Ontario for distribution as Christmas gifts to members of the armed services of all countries stationed in the province. Another example is P.C. 1960-31/440, April 7, 1960, which authorized the remission of taxes on various items of equipment imported from the United States for use in the study of geophysical phenomena during the 27507-3-130i
Interim Supply
international geophysical year January 1 to December 31, 1959. And there are others of that kind.
The point I am making is that using the line of argument which the Prime Minister used, namely that one has to look at the records to see what had been done previously in order to determine what ought to be done now, I do not find any case where there is a record of an order in council for remissions which were given at the same time and in the same order in council which imposed the tax. That is what we have in this surcharge on imports order. We have one order which, under the provisions of one statute, raises the duties and then at the same time, under the provisions of another statute, purports to lower those duties. I think the Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag with the language which he used a moment ago, when he said -he will correct me if I do not use his language correctly-that this remission is, in effect, a ceiling or a limit on the amount by which the customs duties have been raised. When I say that that is letting the cat out of the bag, what I mean is that the Prime Minister is admitting that this order is a case of doing indirectly what the government did not have the power to do directly.
This whole situation that the government is in-the difficulty it faces, the fact that it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep the law under section 22(8) of the Financial Administration Act

arises from the fact that it operated on the basis of an order in council of doubtful validity and that it failed to bring the matter before parliament. If the Prime Minister had done what I understood him to mean he would do when he spoke on television on June 24, and had brought this matter before parliament for validation or confirmation by legislation, we would not be in this position at all. But the government has operated on the basis of an order in council, a hodgepodge of a thing based on two statutes, a procedure which has put the government in an impossible situation. I am not surprised to learn that it would cost these tremendous sums of money to get this information. In fact, I think it is just about impossible to get the kind of information for which I asked in my question the other day. I expected that at some point the answer would be that this kind of information could not be obtained. What this points up is, as I say, the fact that the government has operated on a basis on which it had no right to operate.
If I may go back to this point again, may I say this. The Prime Minister recites the law. He reads section 22, subsection 8. He admits it is the law and he admits that it

Interim Supply
should be kept. Then he says, "How has it been kept since 1951?" It has been kept by having in some cases individual items, but in other cases just a recital that an order in council granted a remission in certain particular cases. However, those remissions were all the repayment of taxes that were otherwise statutory or that were otherwise legal. What we have here, however, is a case of giving with one hand and taking with the other. Unless there is some one that I have not found in the public accounts since 1951, I will say that there is not a precedent for this kind of double barrelled order in council.
It is that kind of difficulty which the government has got itself into. It could still get out of it by bringing the matter before parliament in the form of proper legislation. If it is not prepared to do that, at least there is one other thing it could do; and I would hope that the Prime Minister, having regard to the conciliatory manner in which he has spoken today, will give consideration to the terms of the amendment to the third reading of another bill that is before the house. I think if that amendment could be accepted by the government and accepted by the house and if that bill could go to the committee on banking and commerce, then the whole thing could be discussed, people could be called, and we could get this thing sorted out.
I say again that I am not embarrassed by the Prime Minister's suggestion that I must make the decision whether I ask that half a million dollars be spent on getting information that would more fully answer the question I asked the other day. I give the answer right now. I have no intention of asking that that be done. However, I say this to the government. The fact that I have no intention of asking that it should be done does not relieve the government from facing up, on its own, to the question of what the law demands of it, and facing up to the question of what the Auditor General will say a year or so from now when he discovers that section 22, subsection 8, has not been complied with in respect of an operation for which there is no precedent.
It is still my view that the whole question of the surcharges should be brought before parliament for validation or whatever parliament chooses to do with them. Failing that I appeal to the government. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that I am a wee bit out of order so I will say it quickly and sit down because this is the subject of another debate. When we get to the third reading of the bill amending the Customs Tariff I hope the Prime Minister will suggest that the house accept the amendment moved by my leader and allow

this matter to be referred to the committee on banking and commerce so that it can be sorted out there.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak for very long in this particular debate. Surely we have canvassed this ground again and again. The original subject of this debate was "Let us get on with the business of parliament". From my record of this debate I notice that the N.D.P. has had more speakers in this debate than all other parties in the House of Commons, despite the protestations of their leader that they are trying to do something to expedite the business of this house. I think that anybody such as the leader of the N.D.P. who takes half an hour to tell us, "Let us get on with the job", when he has had something like seven speakers precede him echoing the same sentiment, and three or four speakers following him, is being more than redundant.
He refers to the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He has been answered again and again. In that connection I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that if you have no understanding or no desire to understand, it is not the responsibility of the government to provide that understanding.


An hon. Member:: Let the government live up to the law.


Henry Frank Jones: They have been living up to the law, as has been pointed out by the Prime Minister. I noted some of the remarks of the leader of the New Democratic party when he spoke of concussion. He should know something about concussion as the people of Regina certainly taught him something about it. Whether he is cussed or concussed by the people of Regina, he certainly appears to be completely stunned in his contribution to this debate today.
It is no intention of mine to take up time. I have been speaking barely a minute in this house. I am pointing out to hon. members that there has been placed before this house a motion-and I think it is a very sound and useful one-concurred in, as I would gather by the leader of the Social Credit party as well as by the government, to get on with the business of the house. The only remaining party that we seem to have to persuade is the New Democratic party. Perhaps during the supper hour we shall be able to persuade them to do that.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no intention of prolonging the debate. As the house knows, when I made the suggestion which was made yesterday, I made it quite clear that it was the intention of the opposition, in dealing with this motion, to do exactly as the Leader of

the Opposition had done on an earlier occasion, namely to make a few brief comments and to allow the interim supply to go through. However, there are two things I should like to say. The first one is this. In order that it cannot be said that we have in any way obstructed this discussion, I state that there were only two members of the Liberal opposition who took part in it. Next, I should like to say that I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will be only too pleased to meet with the Prime Minister in order to take up and to discuss with him the suggestion made earlier by the Prime Minister. Before I resume my seat I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister this question. Do the items he mentioned specifically yesterday make up the pre-Christmas objective in so far as legislation is concerned?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I will have to examine that matter. There may be one or two other matters to be dealt with. If we get along in this spirit of co-operation which is so evident here, we might conceivably add several other matters of considerable importance.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Chown in the chair.
Mr. Nowlan moved:: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1963, the sum of $449,473,276.60 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Can the minister assure us he is getting enough to meet all these expenses?


George Clyde Nowlan: We have enough money to pay them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Nowlan thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-86, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1963.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time? By leave, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.
Ways and Means


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister indicate whether the bill is available?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have got a copy here.


Lionel Chevrier: I think those of us who sit here should have copies. Are copies available in both English and French?


George Clyde Nowlan: There are copies available. If not, they should be. Instructions were issued to that end. The bill is not usually distributed because we have to get the number and date after first reading, and that is why it is difficult to get them from the distribution office.


George Clyde Nowlan: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, is there a French copy of the bill available? The one I have now is an English copy.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am advised that the French copies are being sent for.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few brief words on clause 1. Yesterday the Minister of Finance indicated in reply to a question of mine that there is nothing in the supplementary estimates, part of which we are voting in this interim supply bill, to take care of an important matter, namely the unfreezing of the civil service pay freeze. The Minister of Finance also indicated yesterday that he hoped to be bringing down another interim supply bill in the near future. "Near future" and "soon" are words that are movable feasts around here but I gather he meant within two or three weeks.
I simply rise to express the very strong hope that the next time he brings down an interim supply bill, which I presume will be before Christmas, it will include a provision to give salary increases to the civil servants who have not yet got them, and to provide for retroactivity. I will refrain from making a lengthy speech on the matter at this time, and I will not have to make any speech on it at all if he will do this when he brings down his next interim supply bill. That is not a threat, but the minister knows what I mean.
We have been waiting a long time for something to be done about this matter. The minister tells us that we do not have an austerity program and he also tells us he is getting rid of the elements of the austerity program that we do not have. Let us show it to our own employees by ending this freeze on civil service salaries as soon as possible.

Ways and Means
My plea is that it be done when he brings down his next interim supply bill between now and Christmas.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On schedule A.
Lionel Chevrier: On schedule A there are one or two items here with regard to which I think we should have some explanation. One is item 222, Canadian maritime commission, capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $10 million. There have been attempts on a number of occasions on orders of the day to obtain information from the minister, and it has been indicated to us that we should put our questions on the order paper because they were not within the rules.
I should like to know from the minister what portion of this amount is for the capital subsidies announced by the minister some months ago. How many vessels are being constructed under these regulations and how many of these are deep sea vessels?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not got a breakdown here of the number which are deep sea and those which are not.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not going to pursue the matter now but I would simply point out to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the minister that this is information which we were denied on the orders of the day and I can think of no better occasion than now on which to request it. I hope the minister will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport so that we can get the information to which the house is entitled.


George Clyde Nowlan: I will get the information for the hon. member tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
On schedule C.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, there is an item here asking for two twelfths of vote 213a for the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. I wish to raise a problem to which I should like some consideration given. It has to do with the changing of schedules by Canadian National Railways. For some period of time there has been a great deal of comment about Canadian National's trains Nos. 3 and 4 known as the Continental, which run from Montreal to Vancouver. Service on parts of this run is now being discontinued, and I am particularly interested in the section between Capreol and Montreal.

What is being done in this case is very interesting because the act is very definite that when one line crosses another line there should be reasonable meets between trains and reasonable facilities for passengers using these lines. In this particular case the Canadian National Railways have bastardized the time schedule to such an extent there will not be any passengers left on that line. Then, Canadian National will be able to go to the board of transport commissioners and say, we have no passengers so this line should be discontinued.
My feeling, Mr. Chairman, is that we should not allow them to do this. This train made a 15-minute meet with the Ontario Northland Railway which enabled travellers from northern Ontario and northern Quebec to go to Ottawa and Montreal. By changing the time of this train, the railway will ultimately eliminate this passenger service entirely. The only passengers using this service in the last few weeks have been a few people going to stations close to North Bay. This train now leaves at the unreasonable hour of 4.50 in the morning.
This problem was raised in the committee, and I am not in agreement with the argument made at that time by the president of Canadian National Railways, Mr. Gordon. I think he should go back to banking and quit trying to run a railroad. The people in my area are very perturbed and feel they are not going to have any jobs about a year from now. There is no question in my mind but that the railway is going to be able to go to the board of transport commissioners and say, we want to discontinue trains Nos. 3 and 4 because these trains serve no purpose whatever. The railway will be able to prove these trains are not carrying any passengers.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, this parliament has a responsibility to the workers on the railway and to the people of this country to supply a passenger service. There is no question in my mind but that passenger service is of no value to the railway, and it costs the railway money to operate this service. However, we are asked to give assistance to the railways in the form of freight subsidies. In fact, we are asked to give all types of assistance to the railways so that they will be able to operate. I suggest to the management of Canadian National Railways that I, personally, am going to make it my business to hold up their estimates or any other grants from this parliament until they decide they are going to give some kind of service to the people of this

country. I used this service as an example because it is the one about which I am aware.
When Canadian National Railways come before parliament and ask to carry mail, then I am going to look at that request in the light of the needs of my constituents in northern Ontario. If the railway is not serving these people in northern Ontario, then be damned as far as I am concerned with their request to carry mail or anything else that is going to make them money. I think it is about time we took a look at this situation. Every time the railway comes here asking for a new line, then I am going to look at this request. Unless they are going to give some consideration to the needs of the people for transportation, then let us get rid of the railway and substitute for that some other form of service so that the people in the transportation industry will have jobs and the people in the country will be given the service they are not now getting.
We know, Mr. Chairman, that the railway will go to the board of transport commissioners and say, this is the condition in which we find ourselves now. I am satisfied that less than a month ago the railway decided that it was going to create conditions that would allow it to go to the board of transport commissioners in a few months and say the situation had reached a stage where the railway must drop that line. Anyone in Canada who has watched the machinations of the railway over the past year in connection with these trains Nos. 3 and 4, and the conniving that has been done with the Canadian Pacific with relation to these particular trains, will know that the ultimate goal is the discontinuation of these passenger trains.
I believe that now is the time for us to take a look at this problem. I will be quite prepared, Mr. Chairman, when their estimates come before us again or when they ask for more assistance, to ask a number of members who are interested in the over-all transportation policy of this country, to hold up the passage of those estimates until such time as we get a much clearer picture of the transportation possibilities in the future. I believe that we give the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways enough consideration that they should give the people of this country some consideration.
I talked to a railway superintendent the other day who was telling me about all the consideration the railway was giving to shippers in respect of new cars that were going to be put in service for a new ore operation. However, he could not give me any encouragement when I asked him about the installation of air conditioning in a restaurant car on this particular railway because he said
Ways and Means
it was going to cost money and the railway was now losing money on this operation. If the railways concerned are not going to try to co-operate to serve the needs of the travelling public in this country, then why should we help them in some other area which might make them some money? If the railways are not going to help the passengers, to whom they should be giving some consideration, then I do not believe we should give them any consideration.
Let us take a look at the operations of trains Nos. 3 and 4. The train used to leave Ottawa in the late evening and arrive in North Bay at three o'clock in the morning. The passengers did not have to get off the train because their sleeper was picked up and they went on their way to Timmins, Noranda or other points in northern Ontario or northern Quebec. The car was attached to an Ontario Northland Railway train and the people could sleep until nine o'clock. Then, what happened? The first move was to cut off that sleeper, but they left one car that went from North Bay up on the Ontario Northland Railway. Then, they decided they would cut off that North Bay car and it would no longer go on the Ontario Northland Railway. The railway gave us some cock and bull story about how much it costs to drag that particular car behind the train. However, it did not cost any more for the porter, and it did not make them any more money because the Ontario Northland Railway did not get any money out of it. The passengers who had to be wakened at North Bay and sent into the coach said, to heck with it, we will use some other method of transportation. Then, the railway parks this car at North Bay and when the train comes back it picks the car up and takes it to Montreal. This arrangement worked fairly well for the people who lived in North Bay or who wanted to do business in North Bay. They could do business in North Bay during the day, go to the sleeping car and by the time it was picked up by the train they already had a few hours sleep. Then, this car was no longer available, either. Now, there is a further move and the time of departure of this train is changed to ten minutes to five in the morning. It arrives in Montreal at three o'clock in the afternoon and in Ottawa at 11.30 in the morning.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, who is going to ride on this train? Perhaps an Indian who has been out on a drunk all night and wants to go to Algonquin park to sober up, might ride it. I talked to some people around the station at North Bay and they said they presumed that this was the only type of person who was going to catch that train.


Mr. McGee:: Did you catch it?

Ways and Means


William Arnold Peters: Did I catch it? No, I got another train but it meant I had a three-hour wait at North Bay. I travelled on the Canadian Pacific, and this Canadian Pacific train is jammed to the "eyebrows". Last week the Canadian Pacific brought in another coach, and that is jammed. The people are there; the travellers are there. It is just the Canadian National and that silly ass of a Gordon who are trying their best to get rid of this train. I am not like the hon. member for Port Arthur who believes we should do this in an intelligent way. I shall do it whatever way I can.
I believe we should get rid of Gordon. Let us get somebody who cares about these things. Members of parliament have a responsibility because this our railway and we should learn how to run it and determine for ourselves what we want to do with it. We should give some consideration to the travelling public. Our forefathers said this line was absolutely necessary; therefore the board of transport commissioners should give consideration to the matter. However all the board does is look the other way. Why is that? Because we have never twisted their arm for a long time.
I do not want to defer the passing of this schedule but I give warning I intend to do something about it. I am not just sure what it will be, but it is going to be real rough for the C.N.R. The C.N.R. and the board of transport commissioners had better sit down together during the next few days and decide to put this train back where it was, to carry the people and fulfil the obligation they have to the people of northern Ontario and northern Quebec, as well as carrying out their obligation to the people of Montreal. If they do not do that, then they had better look out for trouble.
(Translation):


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to extend this debate, but since the hon. member for Timiskaming managed this afternoon to speak in righteous anger about the railway service, I should also like to add that it would be possible to improve the railway service in northern Ontario. Contrary to what the hon. member for Timiskaming is trying to do, I should not want to be responsible for finding an answer to the problem of the C.N.R., because I prefer to leave it to the authorities of that railway company, instead of getting angry-


An hon. Member:: They are unable to do so.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: -as just did the hon. member for Timiskaming, which is a behaviour

typical of the New Democratic party members, since that is the way they settle all problems, as evidenced by their stand on matters of divorce.
Instead of using that method, instead of laying down our ideas, it seems to me that as a good democrat-not in the sense of the New Democratic party, but in the sense of democracy-


An hon. Member:: In the Social Credit sense.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: -the member of parliament could, while co-operating with the public bodies of his region and his riding, get the services required by the people in his district.
In fact, I already have been in contact with the C.N.R. authorities on that matter, and contrary to what the hon. member for Timiskaming does, I prefer to leave to the authorities of that company the task of looking into the situation. However, if we do not get results in a reasonable time, well, as we did in other circumstances, we shall ask for the help of the boards of trade, of municipal authorities and we shall get what the people in northern Ontario are entitled to, without taking on as the hon. member for Timiskaming just did.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I see that this item seeks to help the railway authorities maintain their freight rates.
I suggest that, in so doing, we enable the railways to compete unfairly with the highway carriers.
Were it not for the fact that it would take too much time, I could give many examples where rates are reduced to such an extent that it does not make sense, and for no other purpose but to do away with highway transport companies.
That is unfair, but I am not surprised that, with the president it has now, the C.N.R. should be able to have its way, because that man is certainly not qualified to fill the post he holds at present.


An hon. Member:: Who hired him?


Alexis Pierre Caron: That man could probably have been replaced by someone better qualified and instead of voting on supply, we should vote to get rid of him and find a man capable of taking over the management of the C.N.R.
Besides, he is the man who came here last week and claimed that there was not one French Canadian qualified to fill the position of vice president of that company. That is

an insult to every French Canadian. There are French Canadians qualified to become vice presidents and there are even some better qualified than he is who could replace him as president.
I think that Mr. Gordon should be told that we are fed up with him, that the time has come for him to resign and at the same time, ask the government to appoint someone to replace him.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised at the stand taken by some Liberal members, as I remember that Mr. Donald Gordon, the public servant who probably renders the greatest disservice to the Canadian public at present, was appointed by the Liberal party of which he is a product. Actually, he was appointed by the then minister of transport, the present member for Laurier. Let the hon. member correct me if I am not right.
Mr. Chairman, if we would call to account Mr. Gordon, the present president of the Canadian National Railways, we would see that this man was one of the directors of the Bank of Canada during the 1929-39 depression. By this very fact, he has contributed to bring about tight money in a country of abundance. Besides, when war was declared, and when we were producing, as our wartime effort, what we were supplying to foreign countries, the same Mr. Donald Gordon was there to force the Canadian people to make sacrifices, in his capacity as chairman of the wartime prices and trade board. His ill genius invented the little rationing coupons, limiting the quantity of butter, sugar, and gas we could buy or the number of tires we could have.
It was a time of rationing in our country, and this has been going on for 22 years.
Later, through their spokesman in this house, the hon. member for Laurier, the masters of finance, to whom he had been useful, had him named president of the Canadian National Railways, with an annual salary of $75,000, three times as much as that of the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Chairman, I maintain that the president of the Canadian National Railways has now proven his inefficiency, and this is very obvious, as the N.D.P. member said a moment ago; and I can assure the hon. member that had he been a member of the sessional committee on railways, had he seen the irresponsible and overbearing manner of the president of the C.N.R., he would surely have made twice as much fuss as he did a moment ago.
27507-3-131
Ways and Means
Mr. Chairman, I have heard some N.D.P. members as well as some Liberal members press for the resignation of Mr. Donald Gordon. Well, I believe that if the three groups would be willing to co-operate, we could obtain his resignation.
Thus, before approving the interim budget concerning the board of transport commissioners, we will ask for the resignation of Mr. Donald Gordon. For that reason, I am proposing that the interim budget be voted only after the resignation of Mr. Donald Gordon as president of the Canadian National Railways.
I believe that we have been fooled long enough by high officials with large salaries, who then come before the committee to tell us of their deficits. That is why I propose, as an amendment, the dismissal of Mr. Gordon, as president of the Canadian National Railways.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I rose a moment ago to ask a question, but following the remarks just made by the hon. member for Lapointe, who made some inaccurate statements in the house as usual, I think I should rectify some of those statements.
He left the impression that the president of the Canadian National Railways was appointed by the Minister of Transport. Now, if he would look up relevant texts with regard to parliamentary usage and ministerial privilege, he would see that such an appointment is not under the minister's jurisdiction but is entirely the Prime Minister's responsibility.
He said that the president had been appointed at a salary of $75,000 a year, whereas, at the time of his appointment, he was getting a much smaller amount.
Last week, in the committee on railways, air lines and shipping, I stated my position as to the appointment of French Canadians in the C.N.R. That is what I stated at that time, and I think there is no need for me to repeat it here. But there is quite a difference between that statement and saying that Mr. Gordon does not have the required ability to manage a railway company.
The very fact that this government appointed Mr. Gordon twice would clearly indicate that the former government's appointment was not so bad indeed.
If I complained about the president of the C.N.R. in committee it was with regard to promotions and to the vice presidents of the

Ways and Means
operation division of the C.N.R., because I thought there had been some discrimination in those fields.
On the other hand, I recalled, and it has often been repeated in the house, that the minister has no right to intervene in the business of the C.N.R. The minister is, in a way, the spokesman of the C.N.R. in the house, but he cannot interfere in its management as he would in respect of his own department.
That is why, on several occasions, I drew the attention of the present president of the C.N.R. and of his predecessor to the fact that only an insignificant number of Canadians of French origin held executive positions in the C.N.R. I think that the present president has, on several occasions, been made aware of this deplorable situation, and I am not ready to accept the answer he gave to the committee.
(Text):
Now, sir, I rose to ask the minister for an explanation of two items that appear, one in schedule A, to which I referred earlier, vote 222 for $10 million, and one in schedule C, vote 222a for $5,500,000, both for the Canadian maritime commission and both in the same wording and the same phraseology. I would like to know why they were not lumped together and what is the reason for dividing them up in this manner?


George Clyde Nowlan: Which is the item?


Lionel Chevrier: I refer to item 222 in schedule A and item 222a in schedule C. It is an item appearing in the name of the Canadian maritime commission for capital subsidies in the amount of $10 million in schedule A and $5,500,000 in schedule C, for the same purpose and to the same end. Why is $10 million included in schedule A?


William Arnold Peters: Sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no intention of sitting down. After what the hon. member said a moment ago and the time he took, surely I am entitled to ask the minister a simple question. The point is, why were they not lumped together?


George Clyde Nowlan: Reading the print at the top, one is based on the revised estimates which were tabled previously, and the $5,500,000, the last item in schedule C, is based on the supplementary estimates which were tabled the day before yesterday. That is the reason; they arise out of two different sets of estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I come back to item 213a that is mentioned here. Is that the same item that was passed in a previous supplementary estimate in the same amount in order (1) to pay the railways for the settlement they made with their employees, and (2) to reduce freight rates in accordance with the Freight Rates Reduction Act?


George Clyde Nowlan: The explanation, of course, is as follows:
-as compensation to such companies for the maintenance of their rates on freight traffic at the reduced levels provided for pursuant to the provisions of the said act.
I knew better than to raise points of order when I was hoping to get something through, but I thought the discussion on Mr. Donald Gordon et al was completely out of order, because this deals specifically with the matter of reduced freight rates.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the $50 million item exclusively in regard to freight rates reduction?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Then how does the minister explain that we have on the order paper, in the name of the Minister of Transport, a measure to reduce freight rates in the amount of $20 million? It is item No. 14 on the order paper, a resolution to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act, to extend this measure for a 12 months period, under which $20 million will be paid. Surely the railways are not receiving $70 million, consisting of the $50 million here and another $20 million in the resolution which is before us?


George Clyde Nowlan: I think this was based on the calendar year rather than on the fiscal year. The note I have in front of me says that this vote, the $50 million vote to which my hon. friend refers, covers the provision for such payments-that is, the reduction of freight rates-for the calendar year 1962.


Lionel Chevrier: But is this for the calendar year 1962-because the act expired on April 30, 1962 and the purpose of this resolution is to pay the railways $20 million for the period extending from April 30, 1962, to May 1, 1963? So from what the minister says the railways will be getting the benefit of this $50 million plus nine months of the $20 million, which does not seem to me to be quite in order.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is the whole point. This payment is based on the calendar year, and we are paying up to the end of December, 1962. There are still three more months in the fiscal year with which we have to deal.

Private Bills


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it is now two himself, is sponsoring Bill No. S-12, and or three minutes past five o'clock. Might we will ask that it too be given precedence be-consider it five o'clock?	fore we consider the divorce bills.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we consider an allocation of time to go on for another twelve minutes and complete this? We are on the last item.


Rémi Paul: Is it agreed?


Frank Howard: Normally we are agreeable, but twelve minutes is not sufficient time to finish.


George Clyde Nowlan: I would point out that we are dealing with the last item, and only with this payment for the reduction of freight rates. There can be no other discussion under the rules on any other matter in connection with the administration of the railways.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, we agree.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Laurier did take up a fair amount of time asking detailed questions on matters raised here, and I think it would be as well if we proceeded at eight o'clock.
Schedule C stands.


Rémi Paul: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-5, respecting the Eastern Trust Company.-Mr. MacEwan, for Mr. Morris.
Bill No. S-6, respecting the North American General Insurance Company.-Mr. Ryan, for Mr. Turner.

Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, before you call the next item, may I ask the consent of the house to give precedence to item No. 343, which is bill No. S-ll standing in my name, respecting the Sovereign Life Assurance Company of Canada? This is a short bill which will not take too much time of the house. I understand that the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Han-bidge), although of course he can speak for 27507-3-1314


Mr. Speaker:: We will get to them one at a time. The hon. member for Marquette has asked for leave of the house to take second reading of Bill No. S-ll, item No. 343 on the order paper, in precedence to item No. 3, which would normally be taken. Is it agreed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before agreement is given I should like to make the same reservation that I made before. I am not going to hold it up, but I do feel that we should recognize that we are interfering with the rights of others in doing this.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: the second reading of Bill No. S-ll, respecting the Sovereign Life Assurance Company of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement. This is a short bill to give the Sovereign Life Assurance Company of Canada a French version of its name, namely "La Souveraine, compagnie d'assurance-vie du Canada". Its head office is in Winnipeg, although one third of its business is done in Quebec, and by virtue of that the company wishes to have the French equivalent of its name.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill S-12, to incorporate Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Hanbidge.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the same leave of the house granted in respect of this item, to take precedence over item No. 3, subject to the reservation of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate?


Mr, Reid Scoff (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I regret having to refuse unanimous consent, but this is one bill in which I have some submissions to make to the house. I understand there was an informal agreement that unanimous consent would be given to take this bill now, but I was not aware of this agreement and, because I have some submissions to make with regard to it I would ask that unanimous consent not be given today, but perhaps that it be given on Thursday, when I will have my notes with me and can make my submissions at that time.


Mr. R. L. Hanbidge (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend could make his representations to the banking and

Divorce Bills
commerce committee. Is it absolutely necessary that they be made in the house? This bill will go to the banking and commerce committee.


Mr. Scoil:: I realize that, Mr. Speaker, and subsequent events may prove me wrong. As a new member I am not too familiar with the procedure, but I do feel that second reading is the time I should like to make my submissions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They could also be made on third reading.


Robert Leith Hanbidge: May I ask my hon. friend whether he could make them on third reading? The reason I suggest this, Mr. Speaker, is because time is very much of the essence in connection with this particular bill. I am very anxious to have it completed before the end of the year so that certain business transactions between the parties can be completed.


Reid Scott: Two days will not make that much difference, Mr. Speaker and, while I do not know this as a certainty, what I have to say may result in some amendments being made. I do not see how two days could make much difference in a bill of this kind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In order to accommodate the hon. gentleman I would be prepared, if others would also, to join in making an order now that it will be given precedence on Thursday so that there will be no doubt about the matter.


Reid Scott: That would be quite satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it will be an order of the house that this item will have precedence on the next hearing of private bills so that there will not be any undue delay?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order stands.



FRANZ ZEITLHOFER

J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: the second reading of Bill No. SD-8, for the relief of Franz Zeitlhofer.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to say a few words on Bill SD-8 which is before us today. This bill has a number of interesting facts in connection with it. We have not been able to assure ourselves in respect of some of the problems that have faced us in the last few days over the disposition of and the responsibility for children of such marriages. In this case we are fortunate that this problem does not exist. This is one of the marriages in connection with which the establishment of residence was carried out by the couple on a voluntary basis
[Mr. Hanbidge.)
and they chose the province of Quebec. If, of course, this residence had been in another province, this matter which is before us today would not have been our concern.
This couple were married in Austria on May 21, 1955. While I have not had the opportunity of looking at the evidence in this particular case, I presume that the other place was given a copy of the marriage certificate from that country and that it ascertained that it had been in good order and that a marriage, in fact, had taken place. We are concerned with this matter, Mr. Speaker, for this reason. One of these days somebody is going to come to parliament and get a divorce when in fact he was never married in the first place. This is something that could easily arise. You may wonder why we refer to this matter, Mr. Speaker. May I say that it is quite possible for a person using a marriage certificate from another country to come before parliament, use another person who was not his wife, and be divorced from the second person where the wife in the particular case was not the person named in the marriage certificate. This would be much easier, I would think, if the marriage had taken place outside the country. This would result in the acceptance of a petition and the disallowance of a marriage which possibly never existed at all between the parties asking for the divorce.
While it is true that the marriage took place in 1955, may I say that in my part of the country there are many people living who are married and who came to this country in about the year 1928, where there is no possibility of their getting a divorce. I can foresee the arrangement that could be made if we were not particularly careful about proving that the people obtaining the divorce were the same people who originally married. I would suggest that this may not be true in this case because of the date, namely 1955. However, by way of an example, let us consider a marriage certificate which was obtained in a divorce action and which was dated somewhere prior to 1928, particularly if only one of the parties to that marriage had come to this country. The necessity of making an arrangement here would probably be indicated to anyone, considering the fact that our arrangements with these countries, particularly those behind the iron curtain, would not allow us to get the information we would otherwise have. For this reason I think it is extremely necessary to make sure that there is in fact existing a marriage between the people mentioned in the petition. I have not the documents-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has not consulted the evidence, perhaps he might feel that he is arguing a hypothetical

case. How can a hypothetical case have any application to the principle of this particular bill?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the evidence-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will consult the evidence, or the summary of the evidence, as the Chair has done, he may see that a valid marriage certificate is presented in this case.


William Arnold Peters: Some days I have it and some days I have not it. Today is one of the days on which I have not the actual submitted evidence. Therefore I have not seen the document that was submitted. I am only using the summary of evidence from the other place. The point I was making is that I have not the original document; I presume it is on file with the Clerk. The point I am making is this. I happen to know of a particular case in which this was done, where the wife was not in this country and the man wanted a divorce. He set it up in such a way that he was being divorced from a woman who was not his wife in the first place. He did this for the purpose of getting a legal divorce.
I suggest this is something to which we should give careful consideration, where the marriage itself took place outside of the country. I am not prepared to say that it is not a hypothetical case. Therefore, we will accept the suggestion that the marriage certificate presented is a correct one. This couple, when they came to Montreal and set this up as their domicile, like many other people, as new immigrants were coming into the country and choosing a domicile in this country. It seems to me that when we establish domicile by choice, we give an indication that we intend to make this our permanent residence as long as we live, or some expression of that nature is used in the establishment of domicile. As to these people coming into the country as new Canadians, how much better off they would have been if they had been able to choose domicile as a Canadian domicile without the limitation that is obviously put on in this case because of the fact that they chose the domicile themselves, and that this domicile was a Quebec domicile by choice.
Before we grant this petition I believe we shall be obliged to be assured and to assure ourselves that the evidence taken is positive proof that adultery has taken place and that this adultery in fact is as charged in the evidence. I would suggest that we give close consideration to the evidence in this case. Again we have examiners who are testifying as detectives and so far as I see from the evidence they have not indicated whether or not they are licensed by the crown in Quebec.
Divorce Bills


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the hon. member is able to relate his remarks to this particular bill and to the summary of evidence, we cannot have argument in hypothesis and on general questions. I would earnestly submit to the hon. member that he should hew the line fairly closely to the principle of the bill.


Mr. Creslohl:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that the hon. member who is speaking on this bill seems to consider that the House of Commons is sitting as a court of appeal on evidence that has been accepted and approved by the other place. I do not think that we are sitting here to question the veracity of the evidence or otherwise.


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order; I thought that the hon. member was asking a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There cannot be a point of order on a point of order. The hon. member is speaking on a point of order and I will then hear the hon. member from Ti-miskaming on the point of order.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, where an hon. member on the floor of this house questions, for example, whether the couple were married I do not know what he expects the House of Commons to do about that. That is a matter which has already been adjudicated upon in the other place. I do not think we sit here to question the veracity of evidence adduced in the other place. On second reading we can discuss the general principle of the particular bill but we cannot question the veracity and exactitude of evidence which has already been accepted.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, the reason we are so concerned about this matter is that over the past few months there have been a number of convictions for perjury and the house may or may not be aware that one woman who was divorced by us is now in the process of appearing before the other place to ask for redress of an injustice done to her by reason of perjured evidence and the failure of our system to protect her. It is for this reason that we feel these matters must be given the attention they deserve.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Whereas the hon. member in discussing the bill may raise a general question with respect to examining certain things, I do not think that on the discussion of the principle of the bill he can go into the particular details. The rules provide that after second reading of the bill it shall go to a committee, and I would submit to hon. members that that is where individual points can and should be raised. I

Divorce Bills
think citation 482 in Beauchesne gives good guidance for the hon. member. It reads in part as follows:
There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked. A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee. Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the house will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee.
And further, the opening sentence of citation 483:
"The house does not profess to decide upon the second reading as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations of fact upon which a proposed bill is based."
I would submit to the hon. member, even without these citations, it is my appreciation of the way to deal with such bills that matters of detail are matters for discussion before the committee and are not discussible on second reading. Therefore I feel that the hon. member should confine himself to discussion of the principle.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with what you say and it was for this reason that I was discussing only the matter of the marriage itself in this case and not concerning myself at any length with the allegations. I am simply trying to point out the possibilities in this case in the light of the original premise that a marriage took place, and I would presume there has to be an original premise. I am simply suggesting that there may be some question with regard to this aspect of the bill.
I should also like to point out that because of the questioning of some of the very basic precedents of these bills we have been able to make changes that I think have been of advantage to petitioners, respondents and corespondents in these matters. I agree that on second reading of this bill we should only be concerned with the principle and for that reason I have raised this matter as well as the matter of the offspring of the marriage and so on, while not necessarily going into the allegations made in this case.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, I would submit to the hon. member that the question of an individual marriage and the matter of children and what was done with them, if that is a pertinent question, and the matter of maintenance, if that is a pertinent question, are matters for the committee and not for second reading of the bill.

Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



JOHN HARMAN

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. R. MacEwan (Pictou), for Mr. Mand-ziuk, moved the second reading of Bill No. SD-9, for the relief of John Harman.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to raise which might be considered a question of privilege, but I thought I would defer raising it until this time because it is related to the bill before us and the other divorce bills. On previous days when the house has given second reading to certain divorce bills items have appeared in the newspapers to the effect that a certain number of bills had got past the divorce blockade. My point is that as a result of that newspaper publicity people have come to the conclusion that these bills have in fact passed all readings and have been given royal assent and that the divorces are effective and the marriages dissolved. I merely wish to point out that is not the case and that all that has happened is that the bills have been given second reading and still have to go through the miscellaneous private bills committee, committee stage in the house, third reading and royal assent before they actually become part of the statutes. I wanted to ask your indulgence to make that general reference.
In the bill before us there are some oddities to which I think attention should be drawn at this stage in order that the members of the committee on miscellaneous private bills, of which I am not one, will be cognizant of these things and will perhaps take some steps to deal with them. From my perusal of the evidence it would seem to be the fact that there was a marriage and evidence to that effect was given by the petitioner. I have not looked at the documents which are in the possession of the staff of the House of Commons, somewhere, and which include the original typescript of the evidence given before the committee, the actual photograph used for identification purposes, the actual marriage certificate and various other documents relating to this particular case. I have not looked at the folder of documents, but merely at the printed evidence which you perhaps have in your possession, Mr. Speaker, and which is distributed to all members.
But taking the evidence as it was given, and as we find it printed here, there was in fact a marriage which took place. The interesting part is that the supporting evidence to the allegation that adultery did take place was given by people who were friends of the petitioner and were not private detectives or

private investigators. In fact, one of the persons who appeared as a witness on behalf of the petitioner, David Seidler, gives his occupation as mechanical engineer. The other person, Mr. Frank Van de Aa, gives his occupation as aircraft mechanic. I would assume, therefore, that they are not private detectives. Their evidence, in fact, substantiates the assumption that they are friends of the petitioner. They were telephoned on this night in question by the petitioner and asked to meet him at a certain place and do certain things. They gave evidence as to what they saw there.
The oddity here is that nowhere in the evidence given by these two gentlemen who appeared as witnesses supporting the petitioner is there any reference to the address-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I think if the hon. member will refer to citations 482 and 483, he will understand that he is calling into question the facts upon which this bill is founded. It is clearly indicated that these are matters for the committee stage and not second reading. As I did on a previous occasion, I would ask the hon. member to follow the rules of procedure with regard to these bills rather closely.


Frank Howard: Yes. The preamble to the bill reads, in part that, whereas the said marriage and adultery have been proven by evidence adduced. Now, if we are entitled, according to your own ruling, to come to some determination as to whether, in fact, there was a marriage, surely we are also entitled to come to some determination as to whether there was, in fact, adultery committed. The evidence given by the two friends of the petitioner indicate that neither one of them referred to the address where the adultery was supposed to have taken place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I think we must read again citation 482. I quote:
-but the expediency ot a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
I would ask the hon. member to follow this quite clear line of demarcation.


Frank Howard: I hope I can. It is certainly my intention to do so. However, it seems strange to me that this parliament is now being asked to approve in principle the dissolution of a marriage on the allegation that adultery took place, a fact which was cited in the preamble of the bill, and we are permitted to question whether or not there was
Divorce Bills
a marriage in the first place but we are not entitled to determine whether or not adultery took place.


Leon David Crestohl: I rise again on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is based on the fact that the hon. member is seeking to question whether or not the evidence taken and accepted in the other place was truthful. We have not the machinery in this House of Commons to cross-examine these witnesses or to reexamine them. It is not within our scope to do that. You are quite right, Mr. Speaker, when you say the committee has that authority, and this is proven by the citations to which you have referred. The committee can have these witnesses before it but we have not the machinery on the floor of this house to examine witnesses.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I submit the hon. member is out of order when he seeks to question the evidence already accepted in the other place.


Frank Howard: Speaking to the point of order, I may say that the hon. member who raised the point, if I understood him correctly, was alleging that we have not the machinery here to deal with this question. Quite frankly, I could not agree with him more. This is the entire basis of our effort so far as these particular bills are concerned, that parliament is not equipped to deal with the particular bills before us. We have not the right to question what takes place before the committee of the other place. In three separate instances people have been sentenced to jail for perjury committed before the committee of the other place, and this is all the more reason we should question whether or not the evidence is or is not correct.
When the hon. members says that this subject matter is for the consideration of the miscellaneous private bills committee-I think he almost means in an exclusive sense-I would draw to his attention what the Prime Minister said earlier today. Even the Prime Minister has some doubts about the committees system of parliament, and feels it should be parliament that does these things.


Mr. Speaker:: In so far as the point of order that was raised is concerned, I suggest, with deference, to the hon. member for Cartier, that the matter of the evidence given in the other place and its veracity is really of no concern to this house on second reading. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member, and this is my view, that the matter of questioning any particular point of evidence is a matter for the committee that is charged with the study of this bill. It is not a matter for the consideration of this house at this

Divorce Bills
time. The evidence could be questioned before the miscellaneous private bills committee, then the committee reports back and we go into the bill clause by clause. If there are doubts based on the deliberations before the miscellaneous private bills committee, then they can be raised. Otherwise, the whole system would be meaningless if, on second reading, when we are discussing the principle of the bill we had the right to go into every question of proof.
I again point out to the hon. member the effective citations 482 and 483, and I would ask him to limit his discussion according to the strict application of the citations.


Frank Howard: I wonder if, with respect, I could ask your guidance because perhaps I have misunderstood what we are to do. On another occasion, November 15, page 1673 of Hansard, you are recorded as saying, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comments made by my confrere, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
If the hon. member is not in possession of the evidence then he can readily obtain it. He could refer to the evidence, and one would assume that all hon. members, in preparation for a debate on the bill, would have considered the evidence and what was involved in the committee reports in respect of the evidence heard in the other place, without adverting directly to that evidence on second reading.
It is this last sentence which I am in doubt about. Then, as reported further on at page 1674, you said:
Anyone who wishes to discuss any of these bills can get hold of the evidence, and we cannot take that excuse.
Further on, in reference to me you say:
I hope that if the hon. member makes reference to the evidence he will not give us long citations therefrom.
I am not attempting to give long citations therefrom. I am merely pointing out that I think I should not be asked to vote for the dissolution of a marriage when I have grave doubts about the evidence upon which the bill is based. Perhaps I cannot go further than that, but I think I am entitled to give my reasons as to why, after having read the evidence, I cannot see my way to vote in favour of the bill. I doubt that the evidence is clear.
There is no reference whatsoever to the address where this adultery was supposed to have taken place, and in fact one of the witnesses said he did not remember the address, either the street number or the apartment. Those are reasons why I cannot support this bill and why I believe the rest of the house should not support it.

If I am permitted to go that far, and I assume I am, as I take a great deal from Your Honour's position in the chair as to whether I am in or out of order, if Your Honour is close to the edge of the chair-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: I can put the hon. member at rest in that regard: In reference to the quotations that the hon. member made the other day-if he will address himself to the Chair I can now indicate to him just how far he can go-I feel it is quite improper, as I indicated the other day, that any of these cases should be discussed in principle in hypothesis. In other words, if one goes into questions of maintenance or matters concerning children, when there are no children involved in a marriage, that is precisely to what I referred the other day.
In so far as the present bill is concerned I do not think that going into particular items of evidence is permissible at this stage. I believe that should be done at the time of the committee deliberations and then reported back to the house. I would again refer the hon. member to citation 483.


Reid Scott: May I ask for
further information? Based on the ruling you have just given, to which of course we shall adhere as these various bills come before us, where there are children and where there are matters of alimony involved am I to interpret your ruling to mean that in those cases we are entitled to go into those matters? I take it from what Your Honour has said that when bills come before us where there are no children involved then these matters should not be discussed. By implication am I to assume that where there are children and alimony problems they form an integral part of the principle of the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: I would say, at second reading, no. In so far as questions of alimony and children are concerned it might be interesting to note just what jurisdiction there is in the house to discuss such matters, and perhaps some hon. member on one of these bills would address himself to that point. But this is something for future consideration. Once that point is settled, then we cannot have it argued over and over on every bill.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



ESTHER WERTHEIMER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. R. MacEwan (Piclou), for Mr. Mand-ziuk, moved the second reading of Bill SD-10, for the relief of Esther Wertheimer.
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, as I participated in this debate on the last occasion these bills were before the house, I wish to join in the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Skeena with reference to the press reports that appeared discussing the alleged blockade by this party of these measures. I wish to make it quite clear to the house that so far as I am concerned, and I know so far as other hon. members are concerned, in discussing the principles in these bills we are not engaged in a blockade. We are performing the legislative task that is thrust upon us by our duties as members of the House of Commons, and in discussing the bill we now have before us for the relief of this particular person we are merely carrying out duties which we have somewhat unwillingly accepted. I want to emphasize that in any of the comments we make on these measures-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder, in view of the discussion earlier today and yesterday with regard to the business of the house, and in view of the desire expressed by the leader of the New Democratic party that committees should have work to do, would it not be wiser for us to pass rather quickly the second readings of these bills and refer them to the committee so that the committee will have something to do?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That would be good sense, to me.


Frank Howard: Good God, look who is talking about sense.


William Arnold Peters: Go back to your commie
friends.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it is quite improper for hon. members to make these exchanges across the floor. They know what the rules of debate are and I think we should come back to a sense of decorum. If remarks are to be made to a speaker during the course of debate they should be addressed through the Chair.


Frank Howard: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I hope you were not looking exclusively in my direction because this was all started by the hon. member for Kootenay East.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I saw no particular hon. member.
Divorce Bills


Reid Scott: So much has happened since the question was asked that I have almost forgotten it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would you like me to repeat it?


Reid Scott: I think I have it in substance, Mr. Speaker. The minister wanted to know why we should not pass all these bills and send them to the committee. In answering the question let me say that while I am a new member and I appreciate the words of the house leader, I really do not think I need a lecture from him in carrying out my responsibilities. He may consider the welfare of children an unimportant matter, but it is on that subject I am addressing myself to this particular bill, because there are children involved in it.
It has been our submission to the house that under the appropriate provisions of the British North America Act once we enter on the whole field of divorce we cannot neglect the problems concerning the custody of children. In this particular case we are being asked to approve in principle the dissolution of a marriage where there are two young children of five and eight years involved. The material before us is not too satisfactory as to what provisions are being made for them. I am not really concerned about the principle of the matter of domicile or even the matter of evidence. As far as I can see, once we enter the field of divorce we do not have to concern ourselves in each particular bill with whether there are any particular grounds. Once we start legislating we do not need to worry about the province they come from; we can grant a divorce to anybody from anywhere in Canada on any grounds we like. If this method continues, Ottawa probably will end up as the Las Vegas of Canada.
My participation in this debate, Mr. Speaker, is to protest against the principle of this bill. I protest against the house giving even qualified approval in principle, which is what Your Honour has suggested we are giving in this case. I cannot bring myself to say, "Pass them all holus-bolus. Never mind about the children, never mind about the family, never mind about the difficulties they are likely to encounter". Therefore I cannot agree with the suggestion of the house leader in that regard. In this particular bill the matter of the children will have to be gone into, their welfare and education. Perhaps that will not be done at this time, out of deference to the ruling of Your Honour, but it will have to be considered at some stage. As far as the evidence is concerned, as I say, we do not have to worry about

Divorce Bills
that. We can give a divorce to anybody in Canada on any grounds we like, presumably, because we are a sole legislative body.
Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything to say on this bill at this time, except that I cannot bring myself to accept the principle of granting divorces in this particular manner. I cannot bring myself to accept the principle of dissolving marriages where there are young children and where we are not dealing adequately with these matters. I know that Your Honour says we are giving qualified approval in principle and it can be rescinded at a later date, but I cannot accept that provision; all my training acts against accepting it. I feel we are not dealing with these matters in an adequate way; we have no machinery with which to deal with them adequately, and I must protest the matter of the House of Commons being involved in divorces in this way.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



RACHELA ZIMBER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. R. MacEwan (Picioub for Mr. Mandziuk, moved the second reading of Bill SD-11, for the relief of Rachela Zimber.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the co-sponsor of this bill for an explanation of two matters in the bill. I note that in this particular case the parliamentary fee has been remitted to the extent of the recommended fee less the sum of $110, under rule 140 of the divorce committee of the other place. I wondered whether this was remitted this year or a year ago.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member please repeat his question? I did not hear the last part of it.


William Arnold Peters: My question was in relation to the remission of the parliamentary fee. I was wondering whether the remission took place this year or last year. It says January 20, 1962. I would presume the sum of $110 was remitted, because I believe the fee is $220. Was this remission made last year or this year?


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this makes too much difference to the principle of the bill which is before the house. I would be glad to take the hon. member's question as notice, though, and look into the matter of fees. But, as was said earlier, that in this connection we are discussing the principle of divorce bills, and I think the hon. member should carry along in that strain.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the co-sponsor of the bill speaks like a cabinet minister when he says that consideration will be given to this matter. Because this is not really his responsibility, that is acceptable to me. I am curious about this matter, and this is a legitimate question. I am interested from the point of view of whether proper representation was made and whether there was any difficulty in this person being properly represented, if her financial situation was serious and rule 140 was applied on that basis. If that was the case, I am wondering what other considerations were given to this matter.
I have another question. In this particular case I note-we do not want to discuss it, but I should like to ask this question-that two detectives are mentioned. I was wondering whether the hon. member could give us any indication as to who they are, or has he in his possession a list of those people who have already been convicted for perjury? I wondered whether these two detectives are people concerned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think perhaps the hon. member, upon reflection, would consider the implication of his remarks. After all, is there not perhaps an aspersion here that the person who gave evidence in this case might be one of those persons who are subjected to a criminal charge and convicted?


William Arnold Peters: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker; I have not a list of their names. I understand five persons have been convicted of perjury, which I suppose is a criminal charge, and I would think we would be justified in being overly cautious as to whether these detectives are people who were so convicted. There is no aspersion cast on these detectives, because I do not know whether they were convicted of perjury. I ask whether a list is available, in order that we will be aware of who they are, because I think, Mr. Speaker, you would agree that this would warrant serious consideration of any case in which they were involved a year ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, and I am all the more convinced that this would be a matter for investigation or question before the committee, and not at this stage.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


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

National Economic Development Board,
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1962	First, perhaps I should explain the termi-
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-86, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1963-Mr. Nowlan-Mr. Paul in the chair.
On schedule C.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Rémi Paul: Shall schedule C carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Schedule C agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.


George Clyde Nowlan: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a national economic 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 the chairman's remuneration and of certain expenses of the members thereof, 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.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Paul in the chair.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to have the opportunity of moving this resolution tonight. I should like at the outset to give the reasons why the government has decided to ask parliament for authority to establish a national economic development board. The government is determined that this country will continue to prosper and to grow. It is determined to stimulate the further expansion of our existing industries and to encourage even further the development in Canada of new and efficient industries. In this way we will provide new and increasing opportunities for Canadians in all walks of life for rewarding employment and ever-improving standards of living.
nology we chose in defining this board. It will be national because it will be concerned with all parts of Canada, as well, of course, as with Canada as a whole. Its scope will be the 3 million square miles of this nation and the geographical regions and economic sectors which comprise it. Its scope will be economic because its concern will be with the soundest, most productive and most prosperous use of Canadian economic resources. On the human side it will contribute to the aim of a good life in Canada, to the provision of economic opportunities for every Canadian. This board will also be in harmony with the aims and programs of this government, which I think it is fair to say are a part of the great movement in Canada toward national unity and development. There is nothing particularly new, Mr. Chairman, in looking forward to these goals because this government in the past five years has brought forward a broad and workable program of economic measures: in the field of trade, a major program of export promotion and financing; in the resource fields, new policies for expansion in oil and gas, energy, forestry and fisheries development; in the competitive health of the economy, policies ranging from fixing at the proper rate the external value of the Canadian dollar to stimulating an awareness for the need of productivity gain in Canadian industry; in agriculture, remarkable strides in farm improvements, marketing and finance; in the public sector, a whole new program of co-operation with provincial and municipal governments to build up the basic social capital of this nation; and, in our most important resource, a determined effort to provide employment opportunities and high standards of living by new break-throughs, such as the technical training program, and by far sighted measures such as the one introduced last week by my colleague the Minister of Labour in undertaking research into the impact of automation and technological change on jobs and employment.
These policies, and the advances that have followed from their implementation, have been directed largely to specific areas of the economy and to meet specific needs very often too long ignored. Today we are broadening our canvas. We are looking at Canada as a whole-at what its economy is now; what it is likely to be; where the opportunities for growth seem greatest; where the deep-rooted problems that must be solved are located, and how they can be solved. I am opening up this discussion in these terms, Mr. Chairman, because I think that in this country, and especially in this house with its present composition, we need a new national
2074	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board awareness, a new national interest on forward, constructive terms. It is within this context that I shall be discussing this new, and to some extent almost revolutionary, proposal for the establishment of a national economic development board.
Above all, the government is determined that this country will continue to prosper and grow. We have two clear objectives in mind: to stimulate the further expansion of our industries, and to encourage even further the development in Canada of new and efficient industries. We are by no means dissatisfied with the progress we are making in these important fields. By comparison with other countries we Canadians have good reason to be proud of our record of economic growth and achievement. This record does not mean that we should not strive for an even better performance. We will face major changes in the world economy in the years ahead which will affect production and employment in this country. We are still in the process of extending our frontiers, developing our resources, and consolidating the gains we have made in the past. We must be prepared for more changes and developments in the immediate future and, I might say, Mr. Chairman, in the far reaching future.
This new board will help us to meet these developments and guide us to our opportunities. Its role will be advisory, and I say that emphatically; but its advice will have a great influence not only on government economic policy but on economic thinking in the nation. This board will help us to draw on the best ideas and the most up to date information to help the government achieve an ever-widening and prosperous economy in all parts of the country.
This advice will come forward to the government, Mr. Chairman, I would think, under three main headings. First the board will investigate, analyse and report on the medium and longer term prospects and possibilities of the Canadian economy as a whole, and of particular industries and areas. In this sense, its findings will be like sign posts or guide lines for progress and expansion. Second, the board will study and report on the methods and measures which will stimulate the development in Canada of new and efficient industries to help Canada grow. Its recommendations will cut across the whole range of government fiscal, monetary, commercial and economic policy, and give the government the opportunity to look at the future effects of these policies on our economy. Third, the board will look into new projects and measures whether in the public or in the private sector of the economy, and make recommendations to the government
[Mr. Nowlan.l

about those which are likely to make an important contribution to the growth and development of the national economy.
In addition to seeking, analysing and recommending ways and means for development in the domestic economy, the board should be able to bring forward useful proposals and worth-while advice on such major problems in the economy as our balance of payments position. I have stressed these problems in the house before during this session, and I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that I will be doing so again from time to time. We must increase our trade surplus and reduce our dependence on foreign capital, no matter how welcome this investment may be. There are no easy solutions and there are no quick solutions; but if we are to correct the problems of the last decade and a half, we must begin now to solve these problems and at least attempt to work out solutions.
As a result, there is now in Canada a widespread view, and one that this government shares, that there is a need for a new instrument to bring together leaders in management, labour, finance, industry and agriculture as well as spokesmen for the public interest generally, so that their collective advice, based on the most complete and up to date information available, and stemming from a common cause, can be made available to the government in the carrying out of its responsibilities to help Canada fulfil its economic potential in the future. This new instrument to which I am referring tonight, of which this resolution is the forerunner, will ensure a flow of ideas and proposals in both directions. This is especially important at a time when the world economy is undergoing great and rapid changes. There are dramatic changes in technology which in turn dictate new changes in business organization.
There are important new developments, too, in commercial policy and in international trading arrangements. Canada will have to find ways of adapting itself to the new trading world which is emerging. I simply suggest there that one of the noteworthy achievements of the last few months is the success of the President of the United States in having had the congress of that country adopt a tariff policy which should result in lower tariffs in the United States and a wider trading area, and also the imagination of our own Prime Minister in bringing before the conference in London the suggestion of a wider trading area and now the welcome of that suggestion by the President of the United States. There is the danger being excluded from markets which heretofore have been ours,

National Economic Development Board
and the necessity of developing a world wide, or at least a world trading area. This is one of the necessities with which this country is confronted, and is one of the problems requiring advice and guidance in the years ahead. It is one of the problems on which I think this council or this board may give us great assistance.
Of course it is obvious that the success of the board will depend largely on the quality and type of persons who are selected to guide its work. The chairman will be definitely a very key figure. It is the intention that this person shall devote all of his time or give all of his time to the work of the board. He will also be the chief executive officer and guide the work of the expert, well qualified, well remunerated staff. He must be a person of recognized national standing, of mature judgment, with close and continuing contacts throughout the broad range of the Canadian community. He will necessarily, of course, lean heavily on the knowledge and experience of the board. These members will be appointed from among the recognized leaders in the many and varied fields of Canadian economic life.
At a later stage when the house will be examining the legislation in detail, it will be more appropriate to speak of the arrangements for the staff which will be required for the efficient conduct of the board's work. I would make only one comment now. As well as having a permanent staff, the board should be able to hire personnel with special qualifications on a temporary basis, so that highly skilled persons from universities, from industry and from other private organizations should be able to make their services available to the board at the staff level as well as at the board level.
Let me develop for a moment what I consider to be the heart of the board's work. It is really quite simple to state: advice to government-and again I stress the fact-on ways in which to achieve the highest possible levels of growth and development. This new government body will be able to look a little further ahead and to study and advise on economic trends and on the likely shape of the economy over a period of, say, three, five or ten years.
As members of the house are well aware, in the day to day work of government-and I am sure my hon. friends opposite who have had experience in government recognize this fact-ministers and their advisers within the government service are very often not able to find the time in which to take an over-all look at our economic prospects and possibilities. They are responsible for departmental administration and for the problems of their
departments. Fortunately we have many well qualified and expert economic advisers, economists and civil servants generally in the government employ. I know of no country which is more fortunately blessed than we are in that connection. But in almost every case these people, these men, these women, are responsible for administrative problems, for day to day decisions within their own departments; and looking after those matters, and looking after them adequately and as well as they do, they have not the time in which to look over the whole broad horizon of the national problems even of today, let alone those which might arise tomorrow or five years or ten years from now.
So what we need at the moment and what this board presages and assumes is that we will be able to set up a board not restricted to departmental details, not restricted to dealing with the problems of the moment-because those will be dealt with by the civil servants in the various departments-but applying the highest levels of professional skills which can be obtained to advise the government on the sort of problems we are likely to face in the future, and how in their opinion we can best be prepared to deal with them.
The government is determined to play its full part in developing and encouraging a high level of economic growth in Canada. It can only do this if it has available to it information and advice on which right policies and actions must be based. It is a key function of this board to formulate advice to government on which policies for growth and development can be based.
We believe that what is now needed is a more systematic and comprehensive apparatus for examining proposals for such projects. In the past many proposals-as hon. gentlemen who have had experience of government well know-come before them on an ad hoc basis. They are recommended by responsible parties. They obviously have merit apparently at the moment, and one is apt to deal with them on a specialized or ad hoc basis rather than in connection with the whole economy of the country.


Lionel Chevrier: On a per saltum basis.


George Clyde Nowlan: I accept my hon. friend's statement on that matter, he having had much experience on this matter in years gone by. Some were examined within the existing organization of government and some occasionally had been examined by royal commissions especially constituted for the purpose of making a report on specific problems. It is our view that the national economic development board can make an important
2076	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board contribution by examining proposals for national economic development projects on a continuing basis, to help establish priorities and to advise on how particular projects fit into our over-all economic needs.
The government will wish on occasion to refer particular proposals to the national economic development board for examination and report. In its examination and report the board will be expected to look into the economic and financial feasibility of such projects, into the cost of such projects and to compare these costs with the national benefits which will accrue, and to develop recommendations accordingly. But it is important also that the board have the authority to take initiatives in this field; to examine any projects or proposals which come to its attention from sources outside the government. The broad representative character of the board will enable it to be particularly effective in this field.
I should like to conclude my statement by emphasizing that the task of the board must be defined and its work related to the Canadian economy and to the Canadian situation. There is much talk about the success in other countries of economic development bodies which might too easily be assumed to be the same as the proposed economic development board which we are suggesting should be adopted by this house.
In considering this matter we have had very much in mind that the United Kingdom and other countries in western Europe have had experience in this field and we have taken considerable pains to draw on their experience. Members of the house will recall that the chairman of the national productivity council organized a special mission to Europe for the purpose of studying and evaluating the work of such bodies in a number of western European countries. We have had the benefit of their detailed report. We welcomed it and we have made a very careful study of it and have made use of it in drafting the legislation which will be submitted to the house, should the committee decide to adopt the resolution which I have presented.
Let me add immediately, Mr. Chairman, and let me emphasize this, that while we were able to draw from the British experience, the French experience and the experience of other European countries much that was good and much that was relevant, we also discovered that in many important respects the Canadian situation is unique and requires solutions and treatment which are definitely Canadian.
One very obvious thing, of course, in the light of our constitutional background, is that Canada is a federal state and a Canadian


development board must take this into consideration. That in itself makes the situation much different from boards which may be and have been set up in unitary states in various parts of western Europe. Again, in this country we have developed largely on a private enterprise basis. We have less government owned enterprise and much more private enterprise than is the case in many European countries today. Generally speaking, there is a good deal more direct government intervention and government participation in the economic and financial markets in those countries than there is in Canada, more, I suspect, than Canadians would want to have prevalent at this time and, I would hope, in the future.
But what all this comes to is that while we can learn from others we must develop our own methods and institutions designed to meet our own problems and needs. The national economic development board must be a uniquely Canadian organization. If not, it will not serve the purposes of Canada as we hope and expect it will.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that while some members of the house may not entirely agree with our idea of the role that government can best play in our economy, all members of the house would like to see Canada achieve the highest possible rate of growth and the highest possible levels of production and employment. In terms of these vital objectives I am sure we are all united and so, Mr. Chairman, I commend to this committee and to the house the proposal for a national economic development board. If the board succeeds in achieving the purposes which those of us who have thought of this and who have developed it have in mind, then I think that the introduction of this measure in the house tonight may be looked upon many years in the future as one of the occasions when the parliament of Canada contributed substantially, and much, to the development of the Canadian economy and the Canadian nation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we have listened with interest to the statement of the Minister of Finance. I am sure if any speech by any minister of the government has confirmed the position which the Liberal opposition has taken in the house over the past four or five years, it is the speech to which we have just listened. What the minister has said embodies basically proposals which have been made, as I intend to show, by the Leader of the Opposition and other members of this party over the period since this government came into office when, because of the slow rate of economic

National Economic Development Board
growth in our country, because of the emergence of a major unemployment problem and because of the existence of a serious situation arising out of our balance of payments transactions, we did propose that the government must recognize the character of the new emergency. Toward that end we proposed the establishment of the very kind of body which the Minister of Finance is now proposing in the name of the government.
We support what the minister has said, although we will have to reserve our final position on the bill until we have seen the bill, but with the principle of a board we are in full accord. On this account we will, of course, support the resolution. We do this on the assumption that the board is designed for the purpose of establishing desirable goals for the economy, for the purpose of getting all elements in the country, including labour, management and agriculture, to work together toward a realization of these aims.
We congratulate the government for this belated conversion, announced in the policy just enunciated by the Minister of Finance. It remains to be seen, however, how genuine that conversion really is, and that we will not be able to judge until an opportunity is afforded to examine the details of the bill. The setting up of such a board as is proposed at least is a small first step in the sort of economic planning now practised in almost every modern economy in countries that have, like us, a mixed economy. A mixed economy means, of course, that most of the economic process is conducted on the basis of private initiative but that the government plays a large and direct part in the economy and is also responsible for the conditions that determine the rate of economic growth, the level of employment, financial conditions and the balance of international transactions.
The minister did not use the word "planning". I do not know whether or not that was by design, but he referred to the report of the special mission of the productivity council to Europe and its careful examination of the economies in western Europe, where there is no hesitation to the use of the word "planning", just as in the report there is no hesitation in recognizing, that having regard to the character of the problems facing us this is not a word to be objected to. The responsibilities of which I have just spoken involve planning. We have had sporadic planning in this country as long as we have been a nation. There was planning of a sort when we built the C.N.R., and in the national policy. From 1935 on we developed a good deal more, and that development was given much coherence by a great administrator in the person of the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe.
We made reasonable progress up to 1957. Then our problems began to show more need for planning of the kind to which other countries, particularly in Europe as the minister said, have been increasingly turning their attention in order to meet their economic problems. I say that I believe we in the Liberal opposition can say that we were quick to recognize the need of this kind of approach long before the government was urged to do so in a document which was prepared by representatives of business, labour, agriculture and the universities, all of whom signed the unanimous recommendation in the report of the special mission of the productivity council to Europe this year, and which was presented to the government some time early in October.
I say we were quick to recognize the lead that was given by the Gordon commission in 1957, when that commission suggested the establishment of, and I quote:
-a body of experts-to inform the government of changes which might be thought desirable in economic policy in order to insure a high level of employment without inflation.
This report was presented to the government in 1953. But notwithstanding the similarity between the recommendations of the Gordon commission and that of the special mission of the productivity council, this government has not moved on this important front until the announcemnt made tonight by the minister. I agree with him, of course, that any consideration involving activities by the proposed board has to take into account the federal character of our country. However, this was taken into account when we took up the challenge of the recommendations made in the Gordon commission and developed this proposal.
It will be recalled that the policy statement of the Liberal party in 1958 contained, under the heading "National advisory board on economic development and automation", an indication that this board would be established with representatives from labour, industry, agriculture and the universities. We urged on the Minister of Labour in particular during the past four years the desirability of establishing a body, in which there would be the fullest co-operation between labour, management, government, agriculture and other segments in the Canadian economy.
Our policy statement, Mr. Chairman, went on to say:
One principal duty of the board will be to study the long term measures required to assure a high level of employment and to minimize for workers the consequences of automation by providing for retraining programs, for better mobility, and other progressive measures.
2078	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board
A second duty of the board will be to plan programs for long term investment and development which will insure the steady progress of the Canadian economy.
Then at our Liberal rally in 1961, we spelled this out again in the following words:
The council's members will have a wide variety of experience in business, in labour matters, in farming, in government and in public enterprises. They must be assisted by expert staff.
You would almost think the minister had read this statement because this is almost the language contained in the statement the minister made a few moments ago. Then, the statement went on:
The council's function will be to know, by direct contact, what is going on and what is planned in all types of industry and all regions of Canada. It will investigate economic trends, promote research, study such major problems as the impact of automation on industry and on the individual. It will bring information and study into focus for the guidance not only of government but also of all private organizations.
Government will then know where the thinking of business and labour and other groups is pointing. They, in turn, will better know the direction of the government policies that so much influence business conditions. They will know what Ottawa is aiming at, and can then make their own plans with foresight. Both government policies and private policies will be based on clearer knowledge of what is going on, on better understanding and a longer view.
This was the position of our party outside of this house. We urged it on the government in this house, particularly in connection with matters having to do with the particular jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour.
I ask the Minister of Labour to recall what happened in this house on May 23, 1960 when, in the name of my party, I introduced a motion proposing the establishment of a national advisory board on economic development and automation. I ask the Minister of Finance to note the word "advisory". He said that this board should have an advisory function, and that word "advisory" is contained in the title of the proposal which we made in 1960. The members of the then C.C.F. party supported our motion. The members of the Conservative party, and there were many more of them then than there are now, voted solidly against the proposal.
Now, what was the proposal? The proposal which I moved on May 23, 1960, read as follows:
This house recommends for the consideration of the government the immediate setting up of a national advisory board on economic development and automation with representatives of governments. industry, labour, agriculture and universities, for the purpose of developing economic policies designed to achieve a high and stable level of income and employment.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1

As I say, every member on the government side voted solidly against that proposal, including the Prime Minister, the present Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour. Indeed, some hon. members speaking against the proposal said some remarkable things which ought to be contrasted tonight with what the Minister of Finance said in his opening statement. For example, we have a statement by the former member for Van-couver-Kingsway, Mr. Browne, an estimable gentleman, who is no longer a member of this house. Listen to what he said about our proposal as recorded in Hansard at page 4156:
The setting up of a board such as suggested by the hon. member for Essex East and the Liberal party would be entirely useless and a waste of the taxpayers' money.
This was the position of that hon. gentleman at that time. Here is what the then member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine, Mr. J. F. Keays, now no longer a member, said in opposing this motion:
I believe that the creation of too many boards and commissions is conducive to excessive bureaucracy . . . Excessive bureaucracy may lead and has led to indifference among business people towards political life.
These words are to be found on page 4187 of Hansard for May 24, 1960. I ask the government, what has happened in the meantime? Why have they made this change? Is it because there has been a new infiltration in the cabinet, by someone not a member of this house, but whose influence touches every corner of parliament and of this building? Is this the reason? In any event, the government has changed its course. It may be that the real power in parliament is not to be found in this chamber but in the other house. It is regrettable that that hon. gentleman is not in this house to have the honour of indicating the reasons he was able to put forward to persuade his colleagues in the ministry that the time had at long last come when this Liberal proposal should be adopted in order to meet the serious problems facing the country.
Then, we have the statement of the affable member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, who said:
... setting up a national board to develop economic policies would be, In my opinion, setting up a new giant in the field of semi-governmental bodies which is quite unnecessary.
These words will be found at page 4179 of Hansard for May 24, 1960.


Mr. Aiken:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder if the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is going to give us his views in this debate?
But even more interesting than these hon. gentlemen is the view of the Minister of

National Economic Development Board
Labour himself with regard to our proposal.
I well remember the night he spoke. He was not as serene as he is tonight. He was scornful; he was angry; he would not have anything to do with the sort of council the Liberal party was then proposing and which the present government has now belatedly adopted.
Here is what he said as recorded at page 4166 of Hansard for May 23, 1960:
-the problems we have to face are not problems that can be solved by any committee.
Then he also said, as reported at page 4163:
__I submit that because of the diversity of
interests, the job of the committee would be impossible from the very outset.
And at page 4162 he said:
This government does not intend to set up committees in order to shirk its responsibilities.
I think in fairness I had better give his words in their full context, and we all remember the emotion and the scorn that attended this declaration by the minister on behalf of the government at that time when he said:
__I submit that because of the diversity of
interests, the job of the committee would be impossible from the very outset. What would its job be? It would be to develop economic policies. Surely what that would amount to would be the setting up of a cabinet outside the cabinet; a committee set up as a government outside the government, bringing forth policies on a national level.
There are some people in the country who believe, having in mind the serious character of our problems and the slow way in which they have been resolved, that it might have been a good thing at that time if we had had a cabinet outside the cabinet.
There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that if we are going to meet the serious problems facing us, we have to recognize that the time has come to create effective machinery for the co-ordination of plans and forecasts for the main sectors of the economy. The time has come when there should be the fullest study made, at the centre and on a regional basis, of plans and prospects for our main industries.


An hon. Member:: What are you reading from? Who wrote it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will tell you who wrote this. It is to be found in the speech I made in this house on May 19, 1960. I said then and I say now that there is a need to correlate these plans with each other and with the plans for the public sector, and we must see how those plans contribute to and fit in with the anticipated future of the economy as a whole, including the nation's external balance of payments.
I say to the hon. member who interrupts me that if he will give this matter the consideration which it deserves, and which is implicit in the statement of the Minister of Finance himself, he will perhaps be convinced that if this step had been taken when the proposal was first made in 1958 and later in 1960 we would not have had such serious levels of unemployment.
If this step had been taken, and if Mr. Coyne had been listened to, it is possible we would not have had the regrettable, unseemly Coyne-Fleming debacle that did so much to discredit this government and country. In that connection let me read what Mr. Coyne did say. He said:
We can have economic growth without inflation, full employment without inflation, a rising standard of living without inflation, increased social services and various forms of government services without inflation, and a balance in our international accounts without inflation-and without unemployment. All this is within our power to achieve-
Those were his words, spoken in Hamilton on May 12, 1960. I say that had there been this kind of board, where the governor of the Bank of Canada could have discussed his particular point of view with other experts -the kind of experts my hon. friend has spoken of-with representatives of labour, management, agriculture, the universities and other segments of opinion in our country then these, among the ablest minds in our country, would have been able to present the government with a blueprint, which might have offset much of the severity of the problems we now refer to when we speak of the period of emergency, the period of austerity into which the government has plunged this nation by its mismanagement of our affairs.
One would have thought, listening to the Minister of Finance tonight, that there was no austerity and no emergency. He spoke as though everything were serene, as though the government had steered our ship on to high levels of employment, that the external balance of payments problem had been resolved. Instead, we face serious situations. The minister, while he did pay lip service to the special mission of the productivity council, failed to observe that it came to the conclusion, after examining the nature of the economies in several western European countries and the United Kingdom, these countries, without abandoning private effort -although in some there had been an increasing amount of mixture of the public and private sector-had sought to meet the problems of the modern day in this developing industrial and technological period by recognizing the necessity for a form of planning,
2080	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board away and beyond anything which this government has yet given any indication it is prepared to adopt.
What the Minister of Finance forgot to mention was that in that same report of the special mission, it was pointed out that a serious gap exists between the co-operation of management, labour and government in Europe as compared with the co-operation in Canada of labour, management and government. The mission pointed out that there was a serious gap. They noted that the kind of collaboration and the co-operation which prevails in Europe between these three important partners does not exist in Canada.
We know in this country that there is a great lack of trust between labour and management. While this government cannot be held accountable for this distrust in its full context, I say nevertheless that by having refused a long time ago to adopt procedures now recommended by the productivity council's mission, it has established the basis for the continuation of this distrust and the existence of a lack of confidence among these three partners in industry-labour, management and government.
As a matter of fact we know that the Minister of Labour in a speech at Gananoque -I think it was in May 1959 or 1960-had announced that the government was going to call these three groups together for the purpose of establishing a forum which would enable these three partners in Canadian industry to do what was being done in Europe. That was not allowed to be proceeded with. Someone in the government, or some ministers in the government did not agree with the Minister of Labour, and they did not agree with the subsequent position taken in this regard by the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few days later. If that had been done, if what the productivity council's special mission recommended had been done, then it is reasonable to conclude that steps would have been taken to increase production in Canada; to increase exports in Canada; steps would have been taken to mitigate the nature and the causes of our external balance of payments problem. Steps would have been taken, instead of the lethargic, laissez-faire way in which our problems since June, 1957 have been regarded by this government which only now begins to realize that we are living in a period when governments must approach these problems through a different instrumentality, supplementing this kind of arrangement with what we have used in the past.
If this government means, by this proposal, that at long last it is prepared to recognize the advantage of the experience in the United


Kingdom through such organizations as "Neddy", what has happened in France through their industry councils and what has happened in Belgium and the Scandinavian countries, then there is some reason for believing that we can accept this proposal as a substantial one. But, Mr. Chairman, we have had some experience with this government. If it means that this government is using this procedural device for the purpose that it has used other procedural devices, then there will be the greatest disappointment.
We have had other resolutions in past sessions which in their very wording suggested an imaginative approach to a particular problem. We have only learned by regrettable experience that the strength of words in these resolutions was not followed by substantial acts. We think of ARDA; we think of the many resolutions introduced by the Minister of Labour, all of which looked good on paper but most of which have not added any substance to the existing enactments on our statute books. There has been nothing by way of additional proposals to bite into the serious problems that face us, such as unemployment. If this is a mere facade, if this does not represent a serious attempt on the part of the government to emulate the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries which have successfully met their problems in this period, then there will be widespread regret throughout this country.
Speaking of the need for a new approach, the director of the common market, Professor Hallstein, had this to say of what was being done in these various free enterprise countries with their mixed economies, and the desirability of boards and techniques like that now proposed in principle:
What is now at stake in our decisions is not a war between rival ideologies but the effective functioning of the modern economy. What we need is less empty phrases, less labels and more fundamental discussions of the technical and very complex problems which will help our powerful economic machine to forge ahead.
If the government subscribes to this, then there is reason to anticipate that through the proposal now before us something substantial will be done. We will have to wait until we see the bill to determine whether it affords any reason for the optimism which I hope will be justified. We have many serious problems today. Some of us in this house attended today with the mayors of some municipalities in southwestern Ontario, confronting three ministers of the crown who had assembled in the absence of the Minister of Finance, detained because of his duties in this house. We listened to their representations with regard to economic conditions in

National Economic Development Board
certain communities of our country, not only in southwestern Ontario but in the maritime provinces. We were told what the economic situation was in those communities. My own city of Windsor was among them. We were told of the winter levels of unemployment in those communities. We were told by these gentlemen what has been done under the town and country planning act in England, what they did in England under the unemployment act of 1960, and what has been done under corresponding enactments in other countries.
If the government is prepared, through this proposed board, to make an attack on problems in this manner, then we will feel that the minister was justified in saying this evening that this proposal is revolutionary. Then the Prime Minister will be justified in saying that this is major legislation. But, Mr. Chairman, until the bill is brought down, until we are given further evidence by this government of its real intentions, while we support the principle of the resolution, we cannot help but have a grave doubt about the capacity and the determination of this government to meet head on the emergent, serious economic and social problems which face Canada. This is the situation which faces this tired government, a government now about to give evidence of its intention to do something substantial, we hope.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I will make it very easy-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be glad to answer, if I can.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to inform the hon. member that the time of the hon. member for Essex East has expired, unless the committee gives unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be glad to answer.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, we have listened to the outline of the general purpose of the resolution before us which is the beginning of the legislation which will lead to a national economic development board. We cannot but give our approval to what is needed to be done and what it is hoped this board will accomplish. However, to just say that we shall have another national board is by no means the answer to the problem that the economy of Canada faces at this time. Whether we listen to the words spoken from the government side of the house about what
a wonderful condition our economy is in, or whether we listen to the spokesmen for the Liberal party and hear what a terrible situation the economy is in, the fact remains that Canada and her economy is far from what it ought to be and what it could be.
I was interested in listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East. He has spoken forcefully. It impressed me, however, that he was dealing more with what has happened in the past than with what we need now. My grandmother used to say to me that it was not a fool who learned from experience; it was a wise man. While we have many lessons to learn from the past, let us just make sure that we do not live only in memories of the past. Rather we must learn from the experiences we have had and relate them specifically to the problems at hand and the future that is ahead of us. That is why it is very important that we in this house during the hours of this particular debate give very careful consideration to the question that is before us.
I would hope the government has not laid out some stereotyped program for this national economic development board, because contributions should come from all sides of the house. What must come out of this legislation is something which meets in the best possible way the problems which we face. I would say this to the government: We already have a multiplicity of boards in Canada. When the historians record the history of the last five years, I am sure that one thing the Conservative government will be known for, amongst others, will be that they have been more extravagant with the appointment of boards and commissions than practically any government before them.
But in this multiplicity of boards let us remember that just another board is not necessarily the answer to our problem. Boards are no panacea. In fact, I hear so much talk about boards that I think we are almost becoming bored with boards. I am not so sure we are not reaching boredom in Canada. Nevertheless, if a board of this type is going to have teeth put into it and we are actually going to meet some of our problems through it, then it is good. In considering it we must make sure that it does develop into something good. Let us remember also, that as we proliferate authority through the establishment of commissions and boards, we do so at the taxpayers' expense. Another board does not necessarily mean that we have a better solution. Too often boards become a consolation, or at least offer a chance for consolation, to the government in that it gives them an escape from responsibility by having another additional authority on which to place
2082	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board the blame if things do not go right. I would ask the government tonight, through the Minister of Finance who speaks for it, what assurance do we have that this proposition now before us will actually produce the desired result?
I would also remind some members of this house that while the Minister of Finance has studiously avoided the word "planning", planning is not the answer at all. After all, the best planning of those who believe in the ultimate of planning-I am speaking of governments such as those in China and Russia -has failed to increase farm production or to accomplish many of the objectives for which it was designed. Even in the United States far too many planning attempts have resulted in failure.
I think that in this regard there are a few basic principles which we must consider. The problem created both by Liberal and Conservative governments of the past arises from the mistaken belief that the change in our society from a rural agricultural society to an urban industrialized economy has resulted in such complexity within the community that the individual is no longer able to deal with these added strains. Therefore the government has felt it necessary to assume control to the point of practically telling everybody what they must or must not do. Herein lies the great danger before us.
I was interested in a passage in the book "The Good Society", written by Walter Lipp-mann, which reads as follows:
It is generally supposed that the increased complexity of the social order requires an increasing direction from officials. My own view is, rather, that as affairs become more intricate, more extended in time and space, more involved and inter-related, overhead direction by the officials of the state has to become simpler, less intensive, less direct, more general.
In this regard as well, I think the present mayor of the city of Calgary made a very profound statement when he was looking back on what he was trying to achieve in government administration at the municipal level. This is his statement:
Our policy is based on the principle that government in any form, municipal, provincial or federal, is essentially a housekeeper, providing the services that people cannot obtain in the free market and providing an atmosphere in which people, of their own free will, can, with security, work toward their own destination. Our basic function is to keep out of the people's way. It is notable that the results, from the point of view of the Calgary administration, have successfully proven this point.
Now, planning is good. But planning which reaches down from the top defeats the very purpose of a democratic society. Planning that permits people collectively to work together and plan from the grass roots up is good


This is the kind of planning we must have, and the kind of planning that such an economic development board must give if it is going to accomplish anything positive for the country.
My proposition tonight is going to deal briefly in generalities, but it is going to centre around the board that was set up not too long ago by the present government and which is known as the national productivity council. I believe that if we are going to gain a proper perspective of what this economic development board is concerned with, we must take careful consideration of what the national productivity council is, what it has tried to do, and what it has laid out in its program to do in the future. The national productivity council, established by act of parliament in December 1960, followed the pattern of some 70 similar successfully functioning ones in various parts of the world. Its purpose is to assist our economy and to improve industrial efficiency to enable Canadian industry to be better able to compete in markets at home and abroad. In this regard, parliament initially voted the national productivity council an annual amount of $150,000, which in my estimation is just a token. Certainly it is not enough to carry on the scope of its activities. The council was clearly set up as a body completely independent from the federal government and outside the public service. I want to make this very clear, because we must not confuse its objectives with those of this board, which obviously, from what the Minister of Finance has said, will have a closer relationship with government.
A number of constructive criticisms have been levelled at the national productivity council. First, the term "productivity" means sweated labour to many unions. Next, the appointment of cabinet selected individuals greatly restrains the value of the council's potential effect. Representatives of appropriate national organizations should be accepted upon recommendation by the latter, rather than by the government. For example, the present procedure left out the industrial unions-those which were formally the C.I.O. -without a national productivity council member. The above proposed changes would immediately give the council's work a much broader and a more penetrating effect. The need for more adequate funds remains acute. The initial sum voted is clearly completely inadequate to trigger off any major drive at the national level with labour's support for raising our industrial efficiency. Amateur sports now receive $5 million per year. If the national productivity council could have a budget of, say, $15 million per year, then I believe it would be able to go forward and

National Economic Development Board
In its present structure with a few minor changes will do very much what we think ought to be done through such an economic board as we have proposed to us now. In this regard, to ask for voluntary contributions relegates the national productivity council to that of a charitable organization. The public today surely readily agree that the supply of funds for education is the government's responsibility, no longer to be left dependent entirely on voluntary contributions. Finally, as already mentioned, the need to broaden the activities of the national productivity council through a more appropriate manner of selecting its members has been recognized, and steps are under way to rectify this situation. The reason I bring up this point is that here the scope of the national productivity council, as I understand the minister, offers an ideal means for doing this very thing he speaks about. If we could develop such a national economic development board on the framework of what we already have, expanding it in its weakened places, and at the same time developing perhaps another arm of it that will permit closer relationship with government through an advisory council, then I think we have very much of what we want in the national productivity council. That is why I think we must be very careful that we do not just add another board and confuse the picture more than it is confused at this time.
In this regard, I think that as we come back to these basic problems we must keep our thinking clear as we try to develop the pattern we are talking about. I was interested last week when the Minister of Labour brought out his suggestion of a new board dealing with the results of automation. You cannot have a conflict between boards and expect those boards to function properly. I am reminded that in early 1961, President Kennedy, upon having taken office, set up a national labour-management advisory council in the United States-you will recall, Mr. Chairman, I believe, that it was under the joint sponsorship of the secretary of labour and the secretary of trade and commerce. This United States council was given even broader terms of reference than those of our own national productivity council. Shortly after that event the Canadian government, apparently without due study and forethought, having only just created the national productivity council, decided to follow the United States pattern. It will be recalled that in the early spring the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce called a national labour-management conference right here in Ottawa. Some twenty national organizations representing labour, management and the public were invited and after two days of
consideration a steering committee was established. That committee was under the joint chairmanship of Mr. Jodoin of the C.L.C. and Mr. McLagan of the C.M.A. They were to agree on agenda items for further meetings. This steering committee has never met since, nor did that conference ever reconvene. Only after this Ottawa meeting was it realized that such meetings would not only largely duplicate the national productivity council but would moreover embarrass the government already committed by an act of parliament. This Ottawa meeting was subsequently quietly buried and hushed up.
Here is an example showing that where you put one board in conflict with another you just defeat the purpose of both. I think that we must regard this matter very carefully as a lesson which can have a great deal of meaning to us.
Coming back to the national productivity council just very briefly at this time, may I say this. I believe that the national productivity council, even though it has had a very small budget, has shown a tremendous amount of progress, in the last month particularly. Mr. Henry, the new executive director, has shown great drive and initiative in many directions. I have here a press release dated November 15, 1962. I would ask the Minister of Finance to think back on the words he just uttered a few minutes ago, as I read this press release now:
A positive attempt to establish a national forum of top level management, labour and government representatives will be undertaken shortly by the national productivity council, it was announced by H. George DeYoung, N.P.C. chairman, at the close of the tenth council meeting here today.
This is just a few days ago.
National management and labour organization leaders will be invited to participate in the forum along with senior government representatives ... It will meet regularly to study Canadian economic developments and trends and recommend common economic goals for labour and management in the national interest.
Is not this the very same thing we are talking about now in the national economic development board?
It is said, and we will agree, that the national productivity council is a functional operation. It is an organization with its objective geared to that, not subject to political influence. It is now stated that the national economic development board will be advisory on policy to the government. However, it seems to me a far more logical thing that the national productivity council broadens into the framework of what we see necessary in this new board and add a new arm of it to reach this objective that we are talking
2084	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board about now. This would be a much more satisfactory arrangement as far as results are concerned than just setting up another board. Why set up something that is superfluous? There is no reason if what we now have is sufficient. Why could it not be possible to have a separate section of the national economic development board which would supplement that which is now being done by the national productivity council and bring the two together? I offer this suggestion, as we think about it tonight. I believe it has some merit if we are going to be constructive in what we are doing now.
It is very necessary that we must carefully consider, as we discuss this matter, just what is needed in our economy. Basically, expressed in the simplest terms, economics consists of the production of goods and services. It consists of consumption or the using of those goods and services and it consists of the distribution of those goods and services so that they can be consumed.
Yes, we actually live in an affluent society as far as production is concerned. It is an age of abundance. We have solved our production problems; at least potentially we have done so. Perhaps in Canada it can be said that we have not solved it. Reading from an editorial in the Globe and Mail dated November 26 we find the following:
-Canada is the world's greatest importer of manufactured goods. Canadians spend $235 annually per capita on imported goods, while citizens of the United States spend only $35, citizens of Great Britain $75, and citizens of West Germany $60. Canadians indeed, spend a great deal more abroad than they sell, and the simple economic fact of the situation is that Canada cannot do so indefinitely and enjoy a stable, functioning economy.
So while we say our productivity is without limit, as we put our machines and our know how to work, yet something is wrong with our production when we have to be the largest importing people in the world. I was quite amazed to find out today through an editorial in another paper, where the values of our exports have actually increased in spite of the surcharges in the last month.


George Clyde Nowlan: Imports.


Robert Norman Thompson: Excuse me, I mean imports. Here is a problem that would cause us to wonder why this should be so. Is it because the tight money situation restricts expansion of our productivity so that we cannot produce the things we are today importing? We must think of this matter very carefully. At least production could be solved if capital were there and if the incentives were there that would put our industry that we have now to work. I hear this over and over again from businessmen. "It is not we who are


lazy. There is nothing wrong with our workers and our Canadian people. Certainly we have all we need to produce with but we are burdened down with too much government, with politicians who do not realize what is really needed today". Let us not here be guilty of putting more weight on them or just establishing another board which may not reach the objectives which we desire to reach.
So far as consumption is concerned, I realize that our greatest market in Canada-and this is something of which we must remind ourselves continually-is the Canadian market itself. If the national economic development board, co-ordinated with the productivity council is to perform its function, it will have to solve this problem of making our consumer demand effective. The only trouble with our Canadian market is that it is not an effective demand simply because Canadians do not have in their hands that which is necessary to buy the things Canadians are able to produce.


An hon. Member:: Here we go again.


Robert Norman Thompson: My friend says, "Here we go again", but this is the basic flaw in our economy which prevents it from functioning as it should be today. Thus we come back to our problem as being one of distribution. I would remind the government, that just the setting up of a board is not going to get at the problem because if you cannot put into the powers of a board that which is necessary to solve the problem. Government does enter into this, and this is why we must have a very closely knit co-operative effort combining labour and management, including industry and agriculture as well, with government to work out these problems.
The real responsibility comes back upon the politicians who are in the government and upon us here. Yes, we just cannot stop at the simple decision of setting up another board. There are other problems as well. There is the problem of providing capital for public capital expansion. Unless we can satisfactorily supply public capital or social capital to meet our social capital needs we are not going to solve the other economic problems. Again this comes back to the politicians.
Let us remember as we think of this matter that there are many bodies in Canada which have spent a great deal of time and effort in studying our economic problems. I am thinking of the federation of mayors and municipalities. All of us receive the publications of this organization. They have carried on a tremendous amount of study in this regard. I think of the various industrial and commercial organizations, our labour unions, our farm associations, our chambers of commerce.

Our problem is to bring all of these together so that we can find the answer to the problems we face.
I come back again to the politicians and government. What about our trade policies? The hon. member for Essex East referred very briefly to the problem of international settlements, and right here is one of the basic problems that urgently must be solved. No national economic development board or national productivity council or 10 more like boards are going to solve the problem unless we come back to these basic problems, and these problems come right back into the House of Commons and to us who are members at this time.
One could go on and on with regard to this and yet this is the purpose of the debate. I speak in generalities tonight, trying to put before the committee what seems to me to be the logical things which must influence our speech and our thinking as we try to come together to find an answer to the problem before us.
Again I come back to the national productivity council. I am not sure that members of this house are aware of just what it is doing. In fact, I myself would not have been as well aware if I had not known this debate was coming up and had done a little bit of homework to bring some of these facts to my own awareness. As I said, I am not sure that we in this house are aware of just what is being done at the present time by the national productivity council exactly along the lines which we have heard the Minister of Finance refer tonight, as he outlined what he felt the purpose of this economic development board should be. I picked up a copy of a speech the other day made by the president of the national productivity council and I should like to quote a few paragraphs from it as an indication of what I am referring to. He said with regard to the problem which faces us in our country today:
This is made even more serious for a country standing quite alone as ours is at present when you realize that most foreign countries have undertaken a planned industrialization and have formed councils for increasing the competitive ability of their countries. Even countries such as Greece are spending over twice the amount Canada is spending in the field of productivity with aims of educating their people in technical management, research, trade union traditions, and with the establishment of management-labour communications in industry.
We have a lot to learn from what has been done already by countries that are farther ahead than we are along the very approach we are suggesting here tonight.
Korea has a council with the objective of the rehabilitation of the national economy by continued industrial development and the development of experienced technical and managerial
National Economic Development Board skills .. . with active committees throughout the country, producing periodicals and books on management, using radio broadcasts, furnishing consultation services, and is running a training school with 304 graduates already.
In the more developed countries more intense efforts exist.
Japan is an outstanding example.
-the productivity council of Japan has a budget of $4 million a year, is housed in a six storey building, with an organization with a president and 30 directors and 200 people on the staff, in addition to regional and local productivity centres. One of the most active functions of this group is the sending of teams around the world, studying manufacturing, marketing and markets. They have sent out over 300 trainees to foreign lands and brought 100 consultants in who have trained 1,300 specialists at home.
Yes, we have boards set up in such countries and we have reports available to us from Pakistan, India, Australia, Belgium, Austria, Yugoslavia, Finland, Sweden, Argentina, France, England and so forth, not overlooking the German centre which is working on the problems of efficiency in a boom economy.
This can be a lesson to us. One of the things that has impressed me most and one of the reasons behind my speaking as I am tonight is what has been done in Holland in the last few months, where they have brought their productivity council already in existence into the pattern of what we are thinking of now, a national economic development board. Again I say, let us take a lesson from those who are ahead of us already in this field, so that we do not fall into the mistakes which a couple of years from now will cause men to stand up in this house, as the hon. member for Essex East did tonight, and talk about the failures of the past.
I believe that one of the greatest hindrances today is the lack of co-operation in our country between management and labour and, secondly, between management and labour and government. Here again is one of the legitimate points we must cover in this economic development board if we are going to solve these problems. Yes, we can look into what the national productivity council is doing and we can find out in more than one place that it is doing exactly the very thing that we are thinking this new national economic development board should do.
In closing may I say this by way of offering a constructive suggestion for us to think about as we go on with the job. The national productivity council is the skeleton on which we can build a national economic development board. We can use the council as a basis and expand it to reach the objective about which we are talking with respect to this new board. Again I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that one of the
2086	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board finest examples of this very thing that has recently taken place is what has happened in the country of Holland.
Let us be very careful not to confuse the issue with more organization. Let us remember that there are regional boards already set up in the provinces, and from the speech from the throne we have an indication that we are going to have an Atlantic development board as well. Already there is an Atlantic provinces economic council. Just what is the relationship going to be with the provincial and regional boards as we bring in still another board?
X will leave the matter there, but I think that here is an opportunity for us in this house to produce something constructive. Here is an opportunity for us to do something that the country needs greatly. But I caution the government: Do not think the problem will be solved just by setting up another board. I caution the members of the opposition parties to also make sure that we make a positive contribution to this debate in order that whatever does come out of it may serve the purpose which we all recognize is needed.


Mr, Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that my good friend, the Minister of Finance, never does. He never disappoints me. As the figure skater of the age he has no peer. But I must say that tonight he has left me a little confused. Almost in his opening remarks he told us that this plan now being presented actually contained nothing new. This, after all, was merely a continuation of what this government has been doing for the last five years. This move, he told us, is part of the great movement towards national unity and development going on, and is just what the government has been doing for the last five years.
A few minutes later he told us that these proposals of his are new, almost revolutionary proposals. Oh, the Lenin from the mari-times with his revolutionary proposals. As I say, he never disappoints me. I knew that these proposals were going to be completely empty in content. I knew, as the hon. member for Essex East knew, that they would be just as empty and just as meaningless as the proposals that were put forward by the Liberal party in their day. In fact, the confidence of the hon. member for Essex East in this matter was revealed by the fact that he came into the house with his script all ready. He knew the minister would be mouthing empty nonsense. He knew quite well what he would say about it. He knew he could claim, as he did here tonight, that the government has been trying to steal the pants of the Liberal party. However, there is a very big hole in


the Liberal party pants, just as there is in the government's pants. It is true enough, as the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Red Deer remarked, no minister would use that word "planning", even though he belongs to a revolutionary party. The word "planning" is apparently still a dirty word in Conservative circles.
It may be just as well he did not use the word "planning" because what has been apparent to all of us tonight is that what is one man's planning is another man's chaos. We might say tonight that we got the Nowlan version of the vision, and it was as vague as the original vision. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether the newspaper reporter whom I read the other day was dealing with a known fact to him or whether he was merely speculating when he suggested that the promoter of this new revolutionary or old Conservative party plan, whichever it is to be, was none other than the cabinet minister without portfolio, the Hon. Mr. McCutcheon. It may be that this is doing an injustice to Senator McCutcheon; perhaps he had nothing to do with it. However, it does make me a little uneasy that the suggestion has been made that he has been the moving spirit behind this, because again I am reminded of the fact that what is one man's planning may be another man's poison.
I am quite sure that the minister without portfolio is an excellent hand at planning for certain purposes. After all, one does not reach the eminence in the business world that he reached without having the ability to plan for a rather narrow group and for rather narrow purposes. However, as I say, he may have had nothing to do with it and it may be exactly what it appears, empty twaddle. I wonder that the hon. member for Essex East really thought it wise to get up and claim this baby because I suspect that before long we will not require any Solomon to decide between these two putative fathers. They will both be only too anxious to abandon this anaemic baby that has been produced tonight.
I am surprised that the hon. member for Essex East was able-I know he is able to do this at the drop of a hat-to wax so eloquently indignant over the fact the government was today bringing in a motion that he and his party had presented only a few years ago. If the hon. member for Essex East will go a little farther back in history he will find that what he quoted tonight as coming from the Conservative government is almost word for word that sort of answer that the hon. member for Essex East and his Liberal colleagues used to make, not once, not twice but many, many times to the proposals made in this house by the group to which I belonged

National Economic Development Board
at that time and still belong today. These proposals for some measure of economic order and planning in our economy were rejected in almost the same terms as the hon. member quoted the Conservatives using in rejecting his proposal more recently.
I am also interested to find that the heart of this new board's task is to be to advise the government, to study and advise on economic trends. It would be nice to know, Mr. Chairman, just what is meant by an advisory capacity. If it means what apparently it seems to mean in the minister's words, then we are going to have an organization set up to duplicate the extremely competent work of the statisticians and economists in the dominion bureau of statistics, and the equally competent statisticians and economists at the Bank of Canada because the minister tells us that is to be their main function, to assess and analyse economic trends, to study and advise on economic trends. Those were his words as I took them down. I admit he may have slipped in something else in the rather voluminous mass of words he produced. However, he seemed to me to underline this limitation on the board's functions when he made reference to the experience of other countries. He directly and firmly rejected them and told us that we in Canada were completely unique. We must have a completely unique approach to this problem. We must abandon any thought that we can learn from others, principally because in those countries they have not quite the addiction to private enterprise that the hon. minister and his colleagues and his Liberal opponents would have Canada adhere to.
I may say I was interested when I heard the hon. member for Essex East citing the experience of France as something we should follow. I wondered then how long it is since the hon. member has examined what was done in France after the war, and the steps that were taken there to put France's economic house in order. They were certainly steps that went far beyond anything I have heard the hon. member for Essex East or any of his colleagues suggest in this house. In fact, he specifically rejected them. A very important part of the work of planning in France after the war consisted of an extensive program of nationalization which included coal mining, all gas and electricity, the principal insurance companies, the Bank of France, the principal savings banks and institutions. In addition, there was a rigid government control imposed on the actions of the trading bank and, of course, there were a number of specific instances of nationalization such as that of the Gnome-Rhone, Lorraine and Renault aviation engine factories and 27507-3-132
the Renault motor car factory. In addition, it should be noted that the French railways had already been nationalized before the war.
There were some elements of the French economy that were not nationalized but were rationalized, that is modernized with the help of public funds. One of these was the steel industry, and 30 per cent of the internal debt of that industry is held by the public authority. The most interesting part of the French experience is what has happened in recent years. This was the work of a planning commission, the Commissariat au Plan.
Later another body came into the picture, very similar to the body that has been proposed tonight by the Minister of Finance and which was proposed a few years ago by the hon. member for Essex East, an advisory economic council. Apparently from that point on the rehabilitation of France began to slow up until finally it hit quite a lot of trouble.
From all comments, literature and articles which I have been able to read on the French plan, I have been driven to the conclusion that following the first flush of quite drastic, clear cut policies after the war, a new element came into the picture. One can readily understand that right after the war, when the whole of the business and financial community in France was discredited by its nazi and Vichy associations, there would be very few in that country who would have the power, or indeed would dare to oppose the plan of Mr. Monnet of the Commissariat au Plan, but once the economy had been put on its feet there was still sufficient power left in the private sector of the economy to cause the setting up of one version of the economic council in 1951 and a later version in 1958 which then apparently assumed virtually the powers of the French assembly, as one commentator put it, because they were the ones who reviewed and passed on the plans of the commissariat.
I am not suggesting that one can expect either the Conservative government or the Liberal opposition to follow the path trod by the French after the war, but I do suggest that perhaps we should, when we are facing this problem of economic rehabilitation, face all of the facts in Canada and not content ourselves, as the minister does, by suggesting we are unique and therefore must have some unique solutions.
I think we have first of all to decide what we want to do with our economy because today many people seem to think an economy is an end in itself instead of a means to an end. Some time ago I was reading a book by Jose Ortega, the Spanish philosopher and writer, in which I came across an extremely

National Economic Development Board useful and penetrating definition of the functions of an organized society. He was dealing with Rome and the fall of Rome and he said:
When Rome ceased to be a project of things to be done tomorrow the Roman empire collapsed.
It seems to me that is a definition of an economy, a society and a nation that is pretty hard to beat-a project of things to be done tomorrow, and I have an uneasy feeling that many of those speaking today of rehabilitating our economy, setting it on its feet and promoting our economic growth, are not actually considering a project of things to be done tomorrow but are considering doing tomorrow the same things we are doing today, but perhaps doing it on a larger scale.
The minister has said Canada is unique. I would not go so far as to say Canada is unique, but I would go so far as to say that there are a number of problems which Canada finds can only be dealt with by very drastic and firm steps. The problems are mainly three in number. One is the very dangerous centripetal force in our society that is continually drawing our people, our industry and our wealth into one central area to the impoverishment of the surrounding and peripheral areas. In that connection I would remind my hon. friend from Essex East that there was a suggestion, which I think came from a commission headed by one of his colleagues, that the best way to solve that problem in one area was to move the people out. Somehow that suggestion has not met with an enthusiastic response from the inhabitants of that area.
The second of our problems is one upon which the hon. member for Red Deer touched briefly, the problem of the imbalance in our economy whereby we rely to such a very large extent on imports for our daily living, and the third, which is in part the result of the second, is the tremendous amount of United States investment in our economy and which most people now recognize threatens our very economic and national independence.
I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to deal with problems of that nature by a judicious and careful application of the carrot and stick method. I think we are going to have to take some decided action ourselves in the form of investment in these areas, and investment in secondary industry by public funds.
I would again like to quote the people who at the present time have the responsibility of handling France's economic planning. Mr. Masse, the present commissioner of planning in France, has said that the time is coming when the living conditions of the people will depend more and more on

the development of collective services and enterprises. A colleague of his, Mr. Gruson, in a recent speech to a group of international experts had this to say:
We must not conclude that the same techniques and mechanisms of growth will in future guarantee a strong and continuing growth.
Those methods and techniques are ones which have been developed more recently in France and go by the general name of "indicative planning," that is to say, planning that is confined merely to indicating the areas to which the authorities think the business world should move.
France also has had the experience of facing exactly the same problem we have had in the impoverishment of rural areas and the congestion of urban areas. The trade union movement in France has recently been urging wider powers for the planning commission to get industry into these areas or, failing that, have been demanding the establishment of public enterprises in them.
Any plan in Canada to deal with our economic problems which does not have as a prominent feature massive investment of public funds in enterprises to rehabilitate distressed areas and to build up our secondary industry in order to reduce our dependence on imports, will be merely a meaningless gesture. I would also suggest that there is only one place from which the funds and resources to undertake such investment can come, and that is from the surpluses of our present productive machinery. It is true enough that we can, in certain circumstances, draw an advance on those surpluses, but in the end those surpluses have to pay for it.
In an earlier debate in this house I placed on Hansard some of the figures regarding the surpluses that are accumulating today in the hands of the large corporate institutes of Canada, and I suggested at that time that the government would have to consider a revision of its taxation program in order to make available for these necessary social and economic purposes the funds that will be required. I shall not, of course, be very popular with the people who conduct these corporations.
I have a clipping here from the Globe and Mail of today's date in which the corporation taxes of Canada are called a menace which, within 10 years, is going to usher in socialism. If I had that confidence I would be quite happy. It would please me very much but obviously the gentleman concerned, Mr. Capon, the vice president of Du Pont of Canada, is going to fight to the last ditch against just precisely the sort of thing I have been outlining and the proposals to which I notice the hon. member for Essex East was

occasionally nodding his head. They are going to fight to the end against them, and I doubt very much-in fact, I know perfectly well- that this economic development board which is being proposed this evening by the minister will be both unable and unwilling to cope with the interests that are represented by Mr. Capon and that Mr. Capon and some of his business associates and colleagues who are closer to the government than even Mr. Capon will make very sure that this board will not have any effective power; and if it is so rash as to make practical suggestions for the solution of Canada's problems it can rest assured that the government will pay no attention to them, any more than the Liberal government of the past paid attention to any such suggestions in its day.
It has been, of course, a very difficult task this evening for the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Essex East. They have had to walk a very careful tightrope. They have had, on the one hand, to embrace, shall I say, the large hank of wool that was produced by the minister for pulling over the eyes of the public to persuade them that something is going to be done about the Canadian economy, and at the same time they had to make very sure-and both of them did make very sure-that they reassured those who before too long will be called upon to fill the coffers of those two parties in the next election campaign-a very difficult job; one which I once heard described as getting votes from the poor and money from the rich on the basis of protecting each from the other.
It seems to me that these two gentlemen this evening have solved that problem very well from their point of view. I only regret that more people were unable to hear the Minister of Finance dealing at great length with nothing, and the hon. member for Essex East standing in his place booming with indignation because this nothing had, according to him, been stolen from the Liberal party. Last week, Mr. Chairman, one of my colleagues and I were coming to the chamber and we saw the crowds waiting to go into the gallery. My colleague remarked to me that he thought the greatest disservice we did to democracy was to open these galleries to the public. This evening I regretted very much that they were not full to the limit because I would have liked to have had as many Canadians as possible listen to the preposterous twaddle that was presented from both sides of the chamber by the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Essex East, quarrelling and squabbling, as I say, over the paternity of a baby that very few will want to own within a few 27507-3-132i
National Economic Development Board months. I wish them luck in it. I wish I could speak more enthusiastically and more optimistically of this proposal, but it is empty; It was meant to be empty; it will remain empty. It will, of course, help to solve our unemployment problem by providing some very juicy jobs for people who perhaps have been unfortunate in other spheres.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in the discussion on this resolution I wish to make it clear at the outset that I also agree in principle with the establishment of an economic development board. We do need an economic advisory board; we need it badly. As the hon. member for Essex East said earlier in the evening, we have needed such a board urgently for the past several years. The Liberal party advocated this throughout the last election campaign and it is gratifying that at last the government has come around to our way of thinking.
Mr. Chairman, we live in a world of change. We live in a world where the rapidity of change is a paramount factor. The amazing developments in the field of science have brought with them increasing automation. Automation and the effect of the Soviet and the other trading blocs upon our economy and the economy of the rest of the world, the upsurge of population in Canada-which means that we will have 150,000 to 200,000 people coming on the labour market every year, even without immigration-all reflect the changing world in which we live. Such times demand clear and positive action. This changing world demands intelligent, long range planning; and the sooner we get it, the better. This economic development board, if properly constituted, could help provide the type of leadership and direction that we need. We need that direction in one field more, perhaps, than in any other. I refer to the field of the secondary manufacturing industry, because it is in the secondary manufacturing industry field that we have the greatest hope for providing more and more employment in this country.
It was not until the end of world war II that there was any appreciable percentage of manufactured products among Canada's exports. Within a few months of the end of the war, however, we began to export a wider and wider range of manufactured products. Later that range extended to include synthetic fibres, synthetic textiles, and even garments made of synthetic fibres and textiles manufactured in this country.
I see Mr. Chairman, it is ten o'clock. May I call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business will be tomorrow, and could the house leader give some indication of what we will be doing for the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we attempt to complete the resolution stage of this measure and get the bill
in front of us for the second reading stage on Thursday. The house may not want to do that, but my own feeling is that this will be a good way to deal with the bill, to which there is not too pronounced an objection. That would be the business for Wednesday and Thursday.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
i *
V' j 1 [DOT] t-
1/
!
[Stage Direction]


Wednesday, November 28, 19S2