1963-06-28

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him what he has to report today regarding the threatened strike of grain handlers in Vancouver. I also ask whether extraordinary efforts will be taken by the Department of Agriculture, in co-operation with the Department of Labour, to bring about a settlement, because the situation will be very serious for the shipment of western grain and the fulfilment of our contracts for the sale of wheat.


Hon. A. J. MacEeachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the right hon. gentleman that the west coast office of the Department of Labour has advised us that the suggestion that there is a strike deadline has now been removed, so the negotiations are not being undertaken presently under the immediate possibility of a strike. With that in mind, both parties are engaging in attempts at negotiation, and I think these negotiations will continue today, Saturday and over the week end, so the situation today is somewhat easier than it was yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, and I hope everything possible will be done to bring about a settlement. Has there been any postponement as to the deadline, or is the matter remaining in abeyance so far as the fixation of a date is concerned after which the union will not tolerate further postponement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand that at one point there was an indication that today was the deadline. Whether this has been the result of a misunderstanding I cannot say, but at any rate at present there is no deadline with respect to the possibility of strike action, according to the information I have.
28902-5-107i



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether all of the items to which the new sales tax will apply have been issued, or are there new items being put in as time goes on?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think Your Honour made a ruling yesterday in connection with these questions. It seems to me that the time has come when the position indicated by the Minister of Finance yesterday, namely that these matters will be under discussion when the budgetary resolutions are before the house, is the only logical position that can be taken; otherwise the house will be leaving itself open to interminable questions on matters having to do with the budget, which has now been disposed of. I submit to Your Honour, with respect, that this question and similar questions should be reserved for the time when the budgetary resolutions are before the house.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order-


John George Diefenbaker: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of confusion, according to news reports which have come to us today, and the list of items to which the new tax will be applicable is not clear. All I asked was whether the complete list has now been issued, so that all the people involved will know to what the tax is going to be applied or whether new items will be coming to light as time goes by.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything that is more urgent than questions in this regard. We do not know when the budget resolutions are coming before us, and the disruptive effects that are felt on every hand in the economy in consequence of the uncertainty of the government's measures in this regard cannot be resolved in any way excepting through questions. I suggest, sir,

Inquiries of the Ministry that while normally one does not want a debate, and should not have a debate on these matters on the orders of the day, this however is a situation where the economy of Canada is being undermined in consequence of uncertainty.
The question asked by the hon. gentleman is, are you making changes; have amendments taken place; what are the new commodities that are being exempted from the sales tax? Surely the minister would be in a position to answer that question without there being anything in the nature of a debate, which I for one would not want to see and in respect of which Your Honour has spoken with such definiteness and with which the house should be in general agreement.


Mr. Marlineau:: Mr. Speaker, just a word on the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice. I do so because this is not the first time this point of order has been raised, and because I think it is a very serious and very important one.
In the last two or three days it has been contended by the Secretary of State and by the Minister of Justice that it is out of order for us to ask questions that conceivably we could ask when we get to the discussion of the budget resolutions, because the budget resolutions are set down as an order of the day. The two ministers mentioned have made reference to the fact that it is supposedly a rule of this house that we cannot on orders of the day ask questions that anticipate an order of the day. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very important point and that it should be cleared up.
Obviously, if this dictum were to prevail, that hon. members could not ask questions that anticipate something that is set down as an order of the day somewhere on the order paper, we could soon get into the situation where we could not ask a single question, because once we get the estimates, legislation and the budget on the order paper everything is there and we would be blocked from asking anything.
I recognize that the reason the Secretary of State, the Minister of Justice and others try to make this point is that there is a phrase in Beauchesne's citation 171 (v) which reads, if I may put the prefix with it:
A question oral or written must not:
(v) anticipate an Order of the Day or other matters.
We are governed in this house by the rules, by the standing orders, that we have made.
[Mr. Diefenhaker J

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms is not a rule book. It is a guide book containing many instances of things out of the past, a compilation of decisions and announcements which have been made. When we find an item such as this-
A question oral or written must not anticipate an Order of the Day or other matters.
-we should look to see where Dr. Beau-chesne got it. He helps us, because right after it, on page 148 of the fourth edition, there is in parenthesis a notation, M. 242. This refers us, if we take the trouble to look it up, to page 242 of Erskine May's thirteenth edition. If we look at that page we find that Dr. Beauchesne has reduced a sentence to a phrase, and I submit that in doing so he has done violence to the original sentence in May. May said discussion in anticipation upon an order of the day-and by the way, in May "order of the day" is in small letters while in Beauchesne it is capitalized, which makes quite a difference-by way of a question is not permitted.
This is the point I wish to make. There is a great deal of difference between being told we cannot ask a question that relates to something which is on the order paper, which is what Beauchesne seems to say and what the Secretary of State seems to say, and being told by May that we cannot, on the orders of the day, develop a discussion or a debate on something which is set down as an order for the day.
If one is to understand what is behind all this, he must go further. On page 242 of May's thirteenth edition, where appears the sentence I have just quoted-
Discussion in anticipation upon an order of the day or other matter by means of a question is not permitted.
-is a small figure 8 referring to a footnote at the bottom of the page. The next thing to do is to find out what is in that footnote. Well, it refers one to a couple of volumes of the Hansard of the United Kingdom House of Commons. There are, in fact, three incidents which come to light on following up the footnote in Beauchesne. Two of them happened in 1876 and one in 1896 in the House of Commons at Westminster.
I have read those Hansards to see what those incidents were. In each case a member of the House of Commons at Westminster, according to the rules and forms they have there, had filed a motion for a debate to take place later that day-the debate they have, for example, on the adjournment. Let me repeat; in each of these three cases a member of the United Kingdom House of Commons had filed a motion for a debate to take place later that day, and in each of these cases the very member who had filed such a notice

tried to anticipate the debate he was going to get, in a couple of cases on the adjournment, by asking a question.
One of the cases before the house at Westminster was a motion to set aside the adjournment rule to make such a debate possible. The Speaker pointed out that the motion was to be decided without amendment or debate. Once it had been decided the hon. member would get his debate, so he should not get a debate in anticipation. These are three specific cases, in each of which the Speaker of the House of Commons said "You"-the hon. member trying to do this today-"have no right to do this now because you are anticipating something you are going to get later in the day".
The Speaker in the British House of Commons did not lay down a general rule that for all time there were to be no questions on orders of the day which would anticipate matters on the order paper. There is no such rule in the British house, just as there is no such rule here.
In my view the Speaker of the British House of Commons was perfectly correct in admonishing the members concerned, twice in 1876 and once in 1896; but having regard to what May said on page 242, compressed by Beauchesne into the words which appear in citation 171(v) of his fourth edition, for the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice to argue that because something is on the order paper-we may not discuss the budget resolutions until fall-we have no right to ask questions about it on orders of the day seems to me quite wrong.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am sure the hon. gentlemen would not want to misrepresent my argument. I never said any such thing. I said that questions which anticipated a debate were out of order. I did not say that you could not ask a question about something on the order paper, and I would prefer that the hon. gentleman dealt with the argument I made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I certainly do not want to do any injustice to the argument of the Secretary of State, but I understood he was relying on citation 171(v) of Beauchesne which says that it is out of order to anticipate an order of the day by asking a question. I am submitting that the house is being misled somewhat by the contraction that Dr. Beauchesne has made of May, and that the house cannot understand this matter unless it goes back to the sources and finds out where it all came from.
I repeat that if it were the rule that we cannot ask about something which is an order of the day, on some future occasion we could be barred from asking any questions
Inquiries of the Ministry at all. I quite recognize that when we ask questions about the budget which seek to get the government to disclose a change of policy we are skating on thin ice. Perhaps oppositions do this, and maybe the Liberals did it when they were in opposition. But surely the kind of question that the hon. member for Medicine Hat is asking is not in that field at all. If I may say so, it is awfully close to a question notice of which I sent to the Minister of Finance this morning. I indicated that I would ask him about a matter about which the country is concerned and wants to know, namely how far this 11 per cent sales tax is being extended. Likewise, all the hon. member is asking is that we be told what is the situation. His question does not infringe on matters of policy; it is seeking information which it is urgent that the people of Canada know at this time. We will not get the chance to debate the matter for a long time, and the assertion of the government that there is a rule which says we cannot do this is contrary to the traditions and practices both of the House of Commons at Westminster and our House of Commons in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his interesting comments. While he is dealing with the matter would he care to comment also upon citation 171(w) of Beauchesne, where it says that a question oral or written must not-
-raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be glad to comment on that. I should like to comment again after I have looked up Campion, page 128, to which citation 171(w) of Beauchesne refers. But may I point out that the question which the hon. member for Medicine Hat asked, like the question notice of which I sent the Minister of Finance, does not ask about matters of policy. These questions simply ask for information as to the present situation with regard to the extension of the sales tax. We want to know the facts; we are not asking about matters of policy.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, a few days ago you ruled that questions asked on orders of the day must result from a situation which has developed within the 24 hours of the time at which they are asked, or within a very short period. I submit that is exactly what we are doing. It is true that broadly speaking the question refers to a matter that has been discussed throughout the budget debate, but the information that is sought is precise information with regard to a situation existing throughout the country outside this house and which has developed

Inquiries of the Ministry within the last few hours. That is why it has become urgent to ask a question of the minister concerned on the precise and definite matter that has arisen within the last 24 hours. Therefore it would not be right to make a general ruling discarding all questions of that sort because of the very fluidity of the situation and the changes that are taking place.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be two points that have arisen in connection with the point of order. The first has to do with the urgency of questions, as submitted to the house by the Leader of the Opposition. On that point I should like to say what has been said more than once in the house, namely that if the questions are urgent surely there has been an opportunity to deal with that urgency over the last week or ten days, when all sorts of questions have arisen and have been asked of the government and more particularly of the Minister of Finance and answered by him.
With respect to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I should like to say to him, with respect, that he has overstated his case. I say that because the rule, as you have pointed out repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, laid down in citation 171 (v) is quite clear, namely that a question oral or written must not anticipate an order of the day or other matters. It is true that my hon. friend has attempted by referring to May, page 242, to explain at great length that that was not the meaning of the citation as outlined in 171 (v) of Beauchesne. However, if one looks a little further in Beauchesne one will find that in citation 173 (1) the answer is to be found to the argument made by the hon. member, and I should like to put it on the record. Citation 173 (1) of Beauchesne reads as follows:
On the Orders of the Day being called, members may ask members of the government to explain certain matters in accordance with practice, but it it not done under the authority of a standing order and therefore such questions may be either permitted or disallowed by the Speaker who must judge each case on its merits. The practice has been so long and so regularly in the house that, if not impossible, in my opinion, it would be inadvisable to stop it.
It seems to me, sir, that this is the answer to the question which has been raised, and it seems to me also that this is the ruling which was made on a previous occasion. Under the circumstances it would strike me that the questions, even though they would appear to hon. members to be urgent because of circumstances which change from day to day, cannot be anticipated until such time as the resolutions are before the house. I submit with respect, sir, that this is the manner in which this question should be disposed of.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I should like to support the case put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I pursued the same course of inquiry and followed the references right back to 1876, and the case as stated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre represents the situation as set out in the reference books. I think he is perfectly correct in drawing attention to the fact that Beauchesne in citation 171(v) has incorrectly capitalized the words "Order of the Day" and has thereby caused a misunderstanding of this particular problem. I also agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the Minister of Justice and Secretary of State have attempted to read into that citation in Beauchesne something which is not there. As a matter of fact, on page 1628 of Hansard the Secretary of State is recorded as saying this:
I think it is a rule of the house that questions are not to be put on the orders of the day about matters which are set down on the order paper for the consideration of the house.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre very properly pointed out, the order paper could embrace all subjects that conceivably could be brought before the House of Commons. Then, if this were accepted as the rule, we would be prohibited from asking questions on those subjects. We would be accused then of anticipating a debate which might be postponed for six months.
In order to complete the record I might indicate that the reference in Beauchesne to May's thirteenth edition can be found in May's sixteenth edition on page 359, and the subnote on that page is the same as the one in the thirteenth edition.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I consider that this is a very important matter which must be decided by your ruling, after you have had a chance to give careful consideration to it. May I point out that the other day when the Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order you dismissed it on the basis that he was relying on a rather ancient precedent which had been established in the House of Commons. I recall my own experience in June, 1956, when I raised a point of order and the Speaker dismissed it because he said it was archaic since it dated back to 1885. The one upon which Your Honour is relying, if you accept Beauchesne, dates back to 1876. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre points out, it has not been a rule of this house.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: If I may
speak further to this matter, I should like to refer specifically to citation 178 in Beauchesne. This citation states that questions

addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending in parliament or to any matter of administration for which the minister is responsible. It seems to me, in the light of this statement, that the question which the hon. member for Medicine Hat is seeking to ask is completely in order.
The urgency of this matter today is simply the fact that apparently there was not a full disclosure made by the Minister of Finance, and it is on this that the hon. member for Medicine Hat is seeking information. In my opinion, therefore, the question is completely in order and we should have an answer to it because there is a matter of national emergency involved.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: The
honourable and learned members for Winnipeg South Centre and Winnipeg North Centre have dealt adequately with the first aspect of this proposition. I should like to deal with the matter last raised by the Minister of Justice, when he referred to citation 173. I think this is very strong ground upon which we can stand. Each case must be considered on its merits. I suggest to Your Honour that if this rule be strictly applied, you should find these questions are in order.
Here we have a situation, sir, where a budget having been brought down and resolutions filed, we find on one particular occasion that there is a withdrawal of one of the budget resolutions, and at a later date we find the Minister of National Revenue making a statement which has the effect of varying another budget resolution. Surely Your Honour can take judicial notice of the fact that the newspapers are full of alarms and excursions about the extent to which there may be further withdrawals. Consequently, judging this case on its merits, it seems to me there is in it this very necessary urgency and desire on the part of the opposition, namely the opportunity to ask and obtain answers to these questions in order that the people of this country may receive information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Unless it is really a major contribution, I am prepared to rule.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since I am on my feet, perhaps I may be allowed to make a brief point. It is clear that May referred to an instance in Britain where it was an order on that particular day, and even Beauchesne is talking about anticipating an order of the day that is now before us. The budget resolutions are not an order of this day, and I submit questions of this kind should be allowed.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to thank all hon. members for their helpful suggestions and opinions and off the cuff interpretations, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. They have made very useful contributions.
During the last few days I have recognized the great importance of these questions and, keeping that in mind, have permitted quite a few questions on this particular sales tax matter. Hon. members will have noticed that many questions have been asked. Some may or may not have been answered, but at least they have been permitted during the last few days precisely because this is a matter of great importance and certainly of great interest affecting the country. For that reason I have been trying to lean over backward to accommodate members asking that type of question, even though one has serious doubts about whether it should be allowed. The reason, of course, is that these are urgent and important questions and, to that extent, have been permitted in a rather casual way.
On the other hand, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition made the point that during the question period we should not enter into a debate, and that is a very good point to make. He could also have said, and if he does not say so I will, that we should not anticipate debate. However, the rules provide that a minister may decline to answer or he may give the kind of answer which he, in his capacity as minister, deems to be proper. I doubt if the Chair should take all the onus of responsibility for repressing all questions of this type, especially in connection with this important and interesting matter, provided the questions are brief and to the point.
As I have said, we have permitted some of these questions during the last few days, so this morning I think it is only right that I should permit one question. If the minister wishes to answer, that is fine. If he does not wish to answer, he is not obliged to do so under the rules. This is the position I take at the moment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Am I to take it that I should repeat my question?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to address this question to the Minister of Finance. Has a statement been issued-really that is not the point, whether a statement has been issued- or have all the items to which the new sales tax will apply be included or have new items been added as time has passed?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Nothing new has been added, Mr. Speaker.
1680	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate to the house the industries to which the extension of the sales tax will apply?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I believe the resolution is quite clear on this point. It does not spell out each individual industry because that cannot be done, but I would refer the hon. member to the resolution, and I think the intention is clear in it.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection possibly I could get some information this way. Yesterday the Minister of Finance met with the Canadian Construction Association, according to my reading of the press. Will he tell the house what representations were made by that association and what his reply was to their request?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Order?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: An absolutely improper question.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what the point of order is. I am simply asking what representations were made by the-


Lionel Chevrier: You are making a speech.


John George Diefenbaker: -by the Canadian Construction Association, and what reply did the minister give to their complaints that the imposition of this tax will be tremendously detrimental to the economy of the country?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I received representations from the Canadian Construction Association. I think they were published in the newspapers, and naturally I said I would consider them.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In questioning the Minister of Finance further in this regard, there is general confusion overtaking not just the building and construction industry but our whole economy-


Mr. Speaker:: Would you come to the question, please? You are offering comment and opinion.


Robert Norman Thompson: All right; I am doing that, Mr. Speaker. The tax covers a wider range of goods than was originally anticipated, and does the minister plan to issue a statement that will cover these non-anticipated industries that are related to this 11 per cent tax, in order to give at least some assurance to the economy so that it may know where the tax is going to apply?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not think I have anything to add, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: On the same point?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes. While the question was restricted to the construction association, I would like to know whether the minister has received representations from the graphic arts association or from the Canadian newspaper publishers with regard to how the tax may affect them, and whether he was able to give them any reply that was satisfactory.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have received representations, Mr. Speaker, and to the best of my knowledge they have all been dealt with.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The government of New Brunswick has called tenders for a new teachers college estimated to cost $5 million. Will the minister consider exempting the construction of educational facilities from the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a matter of policy, and I do not think the question is in order.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the statement in the June 29 issue of the Financial Post that $100 million in construction projects will be cancelled across Canada because of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, would the minister inform the house what the government proposes to do to take care of those who will be unemployed as a result of this action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is out of order.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Last Tuesday I asked the Prime Minister a question and he said he would look into the matter. I am wondering whether the Acting Prime Minister has the answer to the question now, which was: have representations been received from the province of British Columbia concerning the effect of the 11 per cent sales tax on the Peace river project? If the minister cannot answer this question, perhaps the Secretary of State has been in communication with the province.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will have to look into that question. It has not been brought to my attention, though perhaps I should have known about it. I will do that just as quickly as I can.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I ask it because of his interest in this particular field in the past. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that car manufacturers are contemplating increasing the price of cars as a result of the 11 per cent tax on production machinery, which will have an effect on sales and employment in industry?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman recognizes, as you certainly do, sir, the impropriety of this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: wish to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue and ask him if he is in a position to confirm that contractors and subcontractors who had firm contracts prior to June 14 and who now have to pay 11 per cent sales tax, but who cannot recover this amount from those with whom they have contracts, will be given a refund within 30 days.
Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National
Revenue): In view of the detail which the hon. member is seeking, perhaps I could take the question as notice.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: have a supplementary question which perhaps the minister could also take as notice. Is it necessary that there be a contract signed prior to June 14 before the rebate can be given? I understand some builders have had bids accepted but no contract signed.


Mr. Garland:: All I can do is give an interpretation of the regulation as it stands, and what is called for is a signed contract.


David Orlikow: I wonder if the minister has given consideration to the fact that a large number of builders may have put up bid bonds which they would have to forfeit?


John Richard Garland: I can say I have given consideration to a great many things.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It is an entirely new aspect of a question I have raised on a few previous occasions. Has the Acting Prime Minister's attention been drawn to an article
Inquiries of the Ministry in the Financial Post of June 29 entitled "B.C. Liberals Wonder, Premier Just Smiles: Columbia Talks Stall?" in which the experienced and practical Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is reported as making some sententious and prophetic observations relating to the Columbia river treaty issue and will the Acting Prime Minister inform the house whether these zymotic observations represent a commixture of his minister's ideas on this question?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member for having sent me notice of his intention to ask this question. I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member's statement that the observations were either sententious, prophetic or zymotic. I have read the article which appeared in the Financial Post, which the hon. member was good enough to send to me, and I would rather not comment on the observations contained in it because I am afraid they are statements that have been taken out of context. I think the minister of northern affairs was simply trying to say that until the agreement between Canada and the province of British Columbia had been completed it was not possible to consider the treaty with the United States.
(Translation):


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, following the unfortunate statement made in Los Angeles by the Canadian consul general, who was speaking at an official dinner of the French Canadian club. He is reported to have said, at the beginning of his speech, that he was sorry he could not speak the "patois" and, therefore, would speak in English.
Can the minister tell us if he intends to reprimand that official publicly to prevent a recurrence of that incident and to ensure that the French language is respected by all Canadians, especially Canada's representatives abroad?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to read the speech in question and then I might have a reply ready as early as next week.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, the question I was going to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just been asked.

Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS



ADMINISTRATION OF ESKIMO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
With reference to a meeting which took place recently between Mr. Levesque, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, I would like to know whether the federal government intends to give back definitely the administration of the affairs concerning the Eskimos of new Quebec to the government of that province? Could he give us a summary of the discussions which took place?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I thank the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for sending me earlier the text of his question. In answer to the second part, I must say that obviously this is a question of government policy and that a decision will be announced in due course.
As for what happened at the meeting, I am pleased to report that in Ottawa yesterday took place a frank exchange of opinions and a friendly extensive discussion of more than two hours and a half between the Quebec representatives and those of the federal government during which, in the general context of the new problem-created by the growth and development of the Canadian north-we have looked into the conditions which should be made to Eskimos.
It was comforting to note to what extent the two parties seemed to realize in this connection the interdependence of the federal and provincial powers. I can assure my hon. friend that, as regards the discharge of constitutional responsibilities toward the Eskimos, the federal government will leave no stone unturned to protect their interests.
As soon as the two parties have reached an agreement I will advise the house accordingly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a very brief supplementary question to the minister? Could he tell the house whether further meetings will be held in this connection between the ministers of the Quebec government and those of the federal government?


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, the officials of both governments


have been asked to prepare a joint report within 15 days, and as soon as the briefs of each delegation have been received and considered, we will convene a meeting, if necessary.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister? Following his meeting with the provincial minister, Mr. Levesque, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated in his release that certain conditions had to be determined before an agreement could be reached. Is he in a position to tell the house what are those conditions?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there is a misunderstanding in this regard. I do not feel I am in a position to inform the house now, since we are only at the negotiation stage, but what was meant in our joint statement is that by taking for granted that a solution should be agreed upon, it is obvious that this will not be possible until certain conditions have been checked, and that is precisely the purpose of the report we have asked our respective officials to submit.
(Text):


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If any such agreement is reached, will it be submitted to parliament?
(Translation):


Guy Favreau: In my opinion, the question of the hon. member is a hypothetical one. On the other hand, if we come to an agreement, the question whether it should be submitted to parliament will be considered, so that the privileges of parliament will not be violated.
(Text):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which I do not think is related to the budget in any way. When will the minister make an announcement concerning the pay of letter carriers, hospital orderlies and people in similar pay categories?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have held meetings with the staff associations and the civil service commission, and I hope to be able to give the house a further report on this matter in the near future.

(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STATEMENT BY MEMBER FOR ILES-DE-LA-MADELEINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Could he inform the house whether the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) was speaking on behalf of the federal government when he stated in Toronto, as can be seen in a press report, that the proposals now under consideration would grant to Quebec tax returns demanded by Mr. Lesage as well as jurisdiction in the field of social services, the cost of which is equal to the fiscal reimbursements demanded in the name of autonomy?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that a statement by an hon. member can be the subject of questions and of comments from the government and this, during the question period.
However, there is no doubt that the hon. member was speaking for himself and knew what it was all about. No doubt he spoke authoritatively in the circumstances, but I must add that the hon. member was not speaking on behalf of the government. (Text):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised a very serious matter concerning the privileges of this house when I asked the Acting Prime Minister about the statement in the Winnipeg Tribune to the effect that a minister of the crown had said that a certain matter had not been discussed in cabinet-that was a direct quotation-yet it was on the order paper. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister now whether he has been able to contact the Minister of Agriculture and find out whether this report is true.


Lionel Chevrier: I have not been able to contact the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where is he?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not think, in view of the question-which I considered a serious one-it was necessary to do that, and I think the answer I gave at the time is complete, having regard to the circumstances as I understand them.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Then my supplementary
question is this, Mr. Speaker. In the answer of the Acting Prime Minister he said:
I am sure there must be some misunderstanding.
What is this misunderstanding? Is it the Minister of Agriculture who misunderstands, or is it a misunderstanding that exists between the reporter and the Minister of Agriculture, or is there some deeper misunderstanding here in Ottawa? This is what I would like to get at.


Lionel Chevrier: It may well be that the misunderstanding is between the hon. member and the reporter, Mr. Speaker. In any event I do not think it is up to me as a minister of the crown to explain any misunderstanding. I think I should tell the hon. member that if there is an explanation to be given, I will give it in due course. At the moment I do not think there is a necessity to give one.
(Translation):



SUBSIDY ON MILK USED IN CHEESE MANUFACTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clemen! Vincent (Nicole!-Yamaska): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio. Has he received representations from the U.C.C. concerning the extension of the subsidy of 30 cents per hundred pounds for the milk used in the fabrication of all kinds of whole milk cheese and concerning also the application of the export subsidy which used to be 4 cents and which is now 3 cents to the cheese shipped everywhere in the world? If so, would he consider the adoption of measures which would favour immediately thousands of farmers whose income from milk is less than last year?
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. What further action does the minister contemplate taking in order to get the views of the people affected prior to the introduction of legislation in connection with rail line abandonment; and when can we expect this legislation?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have had delegations from the different provinces and meetings

Inquiries of the Ministry have taken place. We are also expecting further representations from the province from which the hon. member comes. The legislation, when it comes forward, will not be limited to the subject of rail line abandonment. It will be legislation based on several of the recommendations contained in the MacPherson royal commission report, and rail line abandonment will be only one of the elements involved.
As to when the legislation will be brought forward, I cannot at this stage of the session give the precise date, as I think hon. members will appreciate; but it is hoped to bring it forward later this session. An opportunity will be provided for the other provinces, as well as my hon. friend's, to make representations. As a matter of fact I think some appointments have already been arranged.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the hon. gentleman announced government assistance to the uranium mines in the Elliot Lake and Bancroft areas. I would like to ask him again whether similar assistance will be forthcoming for the uranium mines in the Beaver-lodge and Uranium City areas of Saskatchewan.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think there are
several categories of mines that may or may not be affected by conditions. The first are those whose operations are not economic and which I understand will run out in due course. The next are those whose economic operations have continuing business and need not be helped out, such as the mine in Eldorado, to which I presume my hon. friend has reference. I understand that in this case there is no difficulty in the immediate future. Finally there are the mines affected by the plan which was announced by the Prime Minister, which are economic but whose business will run out shortly. It was the intention of the government to come to the assistance of those particular mines because of the situation regarding unemployment in which they would be placed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Eldorado is only one of the mines in the Uranium City and Beaver-lodge areas; there are other mines in operation there, one of them being quite large, which will have similar problems in regard to stockpiling. Is it the government's intention


to make this assistance available to them on the same basis as it is being made available to mines in Bancroft and Elliot Lake?


Lionel Chevrier: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not.



STRIKE AT SOLBEC COPPER MINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Megantic made inquiries on two occasions concerning a strike of miners at the Solbec copper mine which has been going on for some time. I should like to tell the hon. member that this dispute is under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities in the province of Quebec.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on June 18 I asked a question of the Minister of Finance and he said:
I will be glad to look into it and answer the question when this matter is up for debate.
The question dealt with the protection of the common carrier principle through the national energy board. I wonder whether the minister has had time to look into this matter.
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of
Finance): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I have not.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I would like to ask him whether a 20 kiloton atomic bomb, which was the size of the one that destroyed Hiroshima and killed 100,000 people, is in his view a low yield bomb?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Relatively low yield, yes, sir.



DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES OF ADDRESS BY MINISTER TO DEFENCE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he would make available to those of us who are interested in the defence of Canada copies of his address to the defence committee yesterday.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand that copies are being distributed to all members of the House of Commons. If the hon. member does not receive one and lets me know, I shall see that he gets a copy.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to take this opportunity of dealing with a question asked earlier this week by the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-' somption-Montcalm.
(Translation):
Of course, he was speaking on behalf of the Saskatchewan members and was asking me whether the C.B.C. was thinking of providing Saskatchewan with a French television station soon.
The C.B.C. has informed me that extension of its French television service to Saskatchewan is part of its long-term development plans. The French speaking people there are so scattered that more that one station would be needed. According to preliminary surveys, there would have to be at least three. The C.B.C. will not be able to provide such a service in the near future for technical and financial reasons.
(Text):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minisler of Public Works):: Yesterday, the hon. member for Elgin asked me a question having to do with oil well casings at Long Point bay, Lake Erie. The department has received complaints with respect to casings which project above the water and which are not considered a menace during daylight hours as they are plainly visible. However, maintaining lights during darkness has been difficult. The department proposes to take action to have these casings removed. As for the other obstacles mentioned in the question, I have asked my officials to investigate.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I had wished to put this by way of a question to the chief government whip, but in his absence perhaps
Establishment of Industry Department I could raise a brief question of privilege.
Yesterday's Hansard at page 1624 and yesterday's Votes and Proceedings at page 147 gave the names of the members of the banking and commerce committee as proposed in a motion put forward by the hon. member for York Centre. I think this is an error to which I should call attention. The hon. member for High Park and my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands may belong to the same clan but they do not belong to the same party. I think the name "Cameron" on that list is our Cameron; in other words, it should be followed by "Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands" rather than by "High Park". This should be checked and, if necessary, a correction should be made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to have it checked.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. C-74, respecting the department of industry.
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: When the house adjourned last night I was suggesting that this bill was inoperative because of the bifocal approach which has been made to this subject of industry. I had also pointed out that, as is well known to all members of the house, the Department of Trade and Commerce is one of the original departments of government going back to a time just after confederation. It is one of the senior departments of government, and one which I am sure all members will agree has been very efficiently administered and well run. Even when our opponents became very critical of the administration of the government of which I was a member they always excepted the Department of Trade and Commerce and admitted that it was an efficient department.


George James McIlraith: Well handled.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well handled, yes. I think there was a feeling at one point that the Department of Trade and Commerce was more interested in trade than in other matters, more interested in buying and selling than in industry itself. I know that at one time representations were made by the manufacturers of this country on the subject. I think there was once a formal request in a brief of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association that there should be a department of industry. That was several years ago and, as I recall it, that representation has not been renewed latterly.
1686	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department
It would appear to me, or at least it appeared to me some time ago, that there was real merit in the suggestion that perhaps the name of the department should be changed so that instead of "Trade and Commerce" it would be "Industry and Commerce" so as to recognize the important part industry plays in the development of this country. But that is a far cry from creating a new department entirely. Although it is true the emphasis in the department was originally on trade and commerce, latterly the department has given a great deal of attention to industrial promotion.
I have here the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year 1962, issued over the signature of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), in which a great deal of attention is paid to the industrial promotions branch. I suggest to all hon. members of the house that it would be very advisable to read the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, particularly the part dealing with industrial promotion starting at page 27 and running through pages 28, 29 and 30. When they read it they will see that there has been a great deal of emphasis placed on the work of the industrial promotion branch. There is an assistant deputy minister who is in charge, and a great deal of effort and time has been spent in connection with it.
For instance, hon. members will find that inquiries from manufacturers during the last year amounted to over 2,300 as compared to 1,700 the year before. The department goes to great lengths to point out the development which has taken place, the number of exhibitions which have been held, the number of contacts which have been established with manufacturers throughout this country, and the number of contacts established with foreign manufacturers who have been appointing our manufacturers on an agency basis to handle their products. Anybody who reads this report, Mr. Speaker, cannot help but agree that the department has been doing a very efficient job in this connection.
Now, Mr. Speaker, surely making, buying and selling go hand in hand. You cannot make goods without selling them. I suggest very seriously and as emphatically as I can that it is a mistake to divorce these functions of industry. Making, buying and selling should be under one integrated department and not divided, as proposed by this bill, into watertight compartments. I was talking the other day to one of Canada's leading manufacturers. He was telling me about the possibilities of export trade and the necessity of developing it. He said that never once had he sent salesmen abroad at any time without at least their coming back with more than enough orders to pay for the cost of the original


trip, and these orders would be duplicated time and time again. Surely this comes under the aegis of the Department of Trade and Commerce. We have our trade commissioners overseas and a most efficient marketing organization. I think it is a real mistake to divorce these departments as now proposed.
I do not think any other countries, certainly any of the major ones of which I have knowledge, have done this. Take, for example, Germany, which is one of the most efficient producing countries in the world, where manufacturing is one of the basic industries which go to the roots of its prosperity. They have a minister of economics dealing with the various functions both of trade and commerce and manufacturing. In the United States, in so far as control comes under the executive-of course a great deal of the control there rests with congress, but so far as control does rest with the executive- there is the secretary of commerce, one minister, who deals with trade and commerce and manufacturing as well.
In the United Kingdom, which as we all know has a long tradition of manufacturing and selling in the markets of the world, there is the board of trade which I think with the exception of shipbuilding and shipping, which come under separate control, covers every other function of industrial development, marketing and commerce. These all come under the control of the president of the board of trade. In France the same situation applies. The minister of finance there has been responsible for the financial and fiscal problems and measures affecting the government of the country. From the beginning the minister of finance had to deal with tariffs. That is not the case in every country. I presume it was the case here, because at one time tariffs went to the very root of the revenue of the country. By far the greater part of our revenue came from customs tariffs, and probably that is the reason, or one of the reasons at any rate, why the minister of finance was in charge of the tariffs. Under our system he is generally in control of the fiscal and financial matters and policies of the government.
As I pointed out at the resolution stage, under a proposal which is now before us on the order paper we will have an economic council set up which will be concerning itself with the planning of economic development, trade, commerce, industry. These matters will come under one minister. Industry will now come under another minister, trade and commerce under another, and then there is finance, the minister of which is supposedly in control of the fiscal and financial problems

of the country. That is four ministers, Mr. Speaker, dealing with this fundamental problem.
I suggest to you, sir, that this is an inefficient way of proceeding, that it is a retrograde step and not one which will aid the development and the industrial life of this country. I believe, as I think we in this party believe, that this bill is thoroughly bad because it will provide for duplication of services. It will provide for duplication of officers, for greater inefficiency of development. It will certainly lead to a greater increase in expansion and will build up a bigger and bigger bureaucracy than ever before.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons we in this party are definitely opposed to the bill. We think it is one which has arisen, perhaps in the same way as many others, from election promises made in the heat of an election campaign. A promise is made to attract attention, and now the government feel it is saddled with its implementation. I suggest with all respect that it will be much better for the government to drop this matter now rather than proceed on this course which I think will lead to inefficiency, and will certainly not promote the industrial development of this counry.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, the measure before us has as its stated objective the promotion of industrial well-being in Canada. This is a laudable objective. That has been the policy of my leader, the present Leader of the Opposition, and of his former government during the past six years. The situation facing industry in Canada when we assumed office in 1957 was not encouraging. There was declining industrial activity throughout the country. The St. Lawrence river industrial basin was severely affected. The decline in industrial activity in the mari-times was even more pronounced. The Gordon report on economic development and prospects in Canada recognized and emphasized these facts.
One of the first acts of my leader when his government assumed office in 1957 was to provide annual special grants of approximately $25 million for the maritime provinces because of their special need. This was in keeping with the historic concept of this party, which recognizes the importance and effectiveness of the action taken at the provincial level of government. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), Senator Brooks and the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), together with a number of others, some of whom are still in this house, were instrumental in bringing these matters to the attention of the government
28, 1963	1687
Establishment of Industry Department of that day. The national policy of those days was designed to allow for the employment of people through the encouragement of the greatest home building program in Canadian history, a winter works program to assist with municipal development and improvement, vocational training schools, and various aids to institutions such as hospitals, universities, and senior citizens' homes. The measures taken to alleviate the changing conditions confronting the coal mining industry in the maritimes were beneficial, and the present government could have paid them no greater tribute than to renew these particular policies for a further five year period.
The Atlantic development board, proposed during the last parliament, has been adopted by the present administration. Its effectiveness was delayed by the last election campaign. It is noteworthy that the present government would like to claim paternity for this measure although their claims are obviously illegitimate. It will be recalled by hon. members that the Department of Trade and Commerce was revitalized during the period the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) served as minister. The action taken at that time was to give emphasis to the marketing of Canadian products. The actual implementation of the program conceived at that time was pursued at a later stage in the life of that administration.
I think it is generally agreed in Canada that the emphasis undertaken in that instance was a proper direction in which to promote the well-being of industrial Canada. I view with alarm the obvious desire of the government to interrupt the progress that was taking place along those lines. This bill is a good example of their carelessness regarding our need for markets. I hasten to assure you, sir, that it is not the only one. If hon. members opposite are determined to change something to give effect to the change in name that they have adopted for their party, the most logical and least damaging change that they could make would be in the name of the Department of Trade and Commerce. We on this side of the house would have no objection to changing it to the department of industry and commerce.
This parliament is not concerned with the partisan desires of the present government. The opposition have a duty to perform, and we intend to exercise that prerogative whenever we see the future of this country endangered by that carelessness with which the present government seeks to impose upon our people an enlarged bureaucracy by the establishment of additional departments of government. We on this side of the house are gravely disturbed by the trend that has already been established in this regard. The
1688	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department voluntary duplication oi departmental responsibility sought by this careless administration reveals a division of opinion and direction within the present cabinet. We might all be interested, we might even be intrigued by this conflict within the cabinet. However, that is no recommendation for support of this particular bill.
Decisions that were made during the period of world war II and the post-war period have contributed considerably to the problems now facing industry in Canada. The late Hon. C. D. Howe had a great deal to do with establishing the basis for some of these tremendous problems. The demand for goods in Europe following the cessation of hostilities brought with it a tremendous impetus to Canadian industry. It also left the Canadian government of that day with a false sense of security. I can recall the boasts of those days-"You never had it better". The careless attitude of that government can be measured by the budget surpluses of those days. The utter carelessness of that administration in regard to the future is still, even today, one of the most appalling chapters of Canadian history.
The tragedy of those days is to be seen in the unemployment figures of the last 10 years, in the young people who have been denied jobs because of a lack of training. Indeed, it would almost seem that the government of that day thought that the only future for young Canadians was that of common labourer, the pick and shovel for the construction industry, the axe for the timber limits. The bankruptcy of that kind of approach is now well established. The national policy embarked upon during the past six years made provision to overcome this gross carelessness and oversight which had made the reputation of the old Liberal party so distasteful to Canadians.
The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), who was the first of his race to become minister of labour, was responsible for the introduction of the vocational training building program which was so universally endorsed by the governments of all provinces.
That program was so successful that it has been generally recognized as the most concentrated drive by any government anywhere in the world with respect to the problems of training and instruction to meet changing industrial and labour requirements. The present government has not repudiated that program, and all of us will watch with interest as the benefits accruing from it begin to assert their influence on the industrial scene in Canada.
For these many reasons I am compelled to come back to my contention that the greatest unresolved problem facing industry in Canada is markets. This bill does not begin to grapple


with that problem. I believe this is where we find one of the basic and fundamental differences between those who sit on the government benches and those who sit in the official opposition. I want to emphasize what I said in an earlier debate, that our industrialists are not looking for increased competition brought about by a duplication or multiplication of industrial plants. Their interests and those of Canadian labour are to be found in the implementation of policies and measures that will allow them to become more competitive in world markets as well as those at home. The more intensive utilization of present resources and plant is preferable to a deliberate duplication and multiplication of plants.
The carelessness of this administration in this regard appears to be the most appalling. The failure of the bill to recognize these premises is alarming. The government would be well advised to give this matter further consideration before proceeding with this proposal. I think it is regrettable that the time of parliament should be consumed by this ill disguised partisan gesture which really adds nothing constructive from the point of view of the industrial future of this nation. It is all the more regrettable when consideration is given to the fact that this change of emphasis could very well destroy the trend toward increasing employment which was resulting from the policies brought forward by the previous administration. It is to be hoped that those opposite will forsake their approach and get down to the real business of improving the competitive position of Canadian industry. The best example they can follow in that regard is that which was embarked upon by the previous administration.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings mentioned some of the work that has been embarked upon by the Department of Trade and Commerce during the last several years, and I think it is fair to say that a new concept of the role that department can play in the business and industrial life of this country was adopted during the period when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre served as minister of that department.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to hon. members opposite that while the objective set forth in the bill appears to be one that every member of the house can support, in my view the bill will result in a duplication of the services we now have. It will result in an increase in the number of civil servants required, and in the long run it will result in confusion beyond anything we have seen in the past with regard to the production, marketing and distribution of Canadian industrial products.

For this reason I think the government would be well advised to consider the withdrawal of the bill at this time, until they have had an opportunity to consider the matter further.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are only one or two observations I intend to make in respect of this bill and the general concept that is more and more being shown as characteristic of the new government. I can add very little to the remarks made by the hon. member for Perth and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, or to the remarks uttered by the hon. member for Rosthern.
However, I think we should look at the general situation that is becoming clearer with the passing days. I refer to the fact that this government has come to the conclusion that as long as it is doing something, what it does must necessarily be effective. The planners are with us, the planners who know what should be done. I am not going to identify them today, but they sit opposite. They have ideas on these questions and they believe they have the answers to all the problems that face the nation. I think they call it directional planning. Well, we have had an example of directional planning in the last few days in the changes, in the declarations and in the retreats that have been made by the government in respect of a measure that is of importance to Canadians.
We find today in every part of this nation the economy is being endangered by the uncertainties that result from planning that was ill digested, ill considered and has had to be changed from day to day. The setting up of this department of government has been an avowed purpose and aim of the Minister of Finance. Indeed, as I look at the plans that are brought before parliament, and others that were set out in the speech from the throne, it becomes more apparent that whatever plans he has are going to be carried into effect by this government, regardless of the consequences.
I am not so sure that there is complete unanimity over there in this regard. I have no reason to be certain in my opinion, but I think some of the more carefully minded members of the government have been somewhat disturbed about the courses of action that are being planned for the Canadian people. I referred to "directional planning". Was it directional planning that only recently brought about a declaration in the budget that has had to be rectified, altered and retreated from? They change from day to day. When we ask them for the latest in the category of change, we cannot get it. The great danger, Mr. Speaker, is that when
28,	1963	1689
Establishment of Industry Department planners direct a course and things do not turn out as they planned, the economy suffers.
There is no part of Canada today that is not suffering because of the uncertainty of this government. Its failure to go through with its so-called plans has not been due to the opposition but has been due to the fact that Canadians as a whole have become mortified at the peripatetic performance of the Minister of Finance and other ministers of this government. I doubt whether in all history the Canadian people, in so short a time, have been so uncertain as to their future as they are today, and so disillusioned by the actions taken by this government. When we ask what is the latest in the catalogue of change the answer is that we must wait; and while parliament waits for the government to decide its course, in every part of this country the economy is being detrimentally affected if not undermined.
The purpose is to increase employment. The objectives referred to by the minister in the course of his speech are laudable in every way. However, even though the objectives of the government are laudable, the means chosen to bring them into effect have proven to be the reverse of the anticipated hopes of the government.
In so far as the setting up of another department is concerned, I am not going into the particulars of the legislation. It will be dealt with clause by clause during the committee stage. However, I do believe it is fair to say that instead of Canada having an expanding economy in consequence of the action taken by this government to date, it is an expensive economy that is being developed in government. They are increasing the number of cabinet ministers, pushing up the stipend of parliamentarians, multiplying the officials in these departments. It is a case of increased bureaucracy and added expense, increased demands upon the taxpayers.
So these people have the idea that the government can do everything. Some time I will deal with that point, Mr. Speaker, and I will name them. I find it difficult to understand, with the number of former civil servants they have in senior positions, why they found it necessary to go outside to get these three wise men. They have the greatest galaxy of former bureaucrats who have ever been gathered together under the aegis of any government. However, they found it necessary to go outside.
This is not going to bring about any expansion. I was interested in this department. It was promised a long while ago by the Minister of Finance. He wrote a book. He

Establishment of Industry Department wrote a revised version ol the book. I suppose as a result of his experience during the last few weeks there will be a revision of the revised version.
As far back as 1961 he said there should be a separate minister for industry and for regional economic affairs. I do not know whether the reference is to two ministers or one, but the press reference indicated two at that time. Then later on he said:
In my view, the federal government should appoint a separate minister with direct responsibility for directing policies designed to revitalize business activity in depressed areas all across the country.
What will this department achieve that the Department of Trade and Commerce cannot achieve? The Minister of Trade and Commerce is one who is trained in bureaucracy. He was deputy minister in the days when Mr. Howe was minister. We remember those days very well, when Canadians were pushed around as never before in our history. I am not speaking about days of war; I am speaking about days of peace. Is this not part and parcel of the plan establishing duality?
During the election campaign the Prime Minister said "I am going to appoint a minister of industry and I am going to appoint an eastern minister of agriculture." The hon. gentleman opposite bows in anticipation. I know his ability, capacity and warmheartedness. Yes, the Prime Minister said he would divide the Department of Agriculture into two parts. Mr. Speaker, Gaul was divided into three. One of the two must be senior and the other junior; and this proliferation of portfolios, this expansion and multiplication make for jobs, but is it going to make for efficiency?


Miss LaMarsh:: Wait and see. Doom and gloom.


Mr. Monleith:: Doom and gloom, she says.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to say anything, Mr. Speaker, except that truth has spoken in reverse. I have mentioned multiplicity. In power in the United States, the Republican party was identified with the slogan, "Two chickens in every pot". The new slogan for this government is two cabinet ministers for every job.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister said he would increase the cabinet by only one minister, and he indicated who would be removed from the roster, the associate minister of defence. The Prime Minister indicated that the associate minister of defence had little or nothing to do. He said "I am going to put an end to that; I am going to abolish that position." However, the hon. member who now occupies that position
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
need live in no fear, because when I asked the Prime Minister about it the other day he indicated he had changed his mind. Therefore the cabinet is going to be further enlarged.
Then there are the parliamentary secretaries. I always pay my tribute to young men and women coming into the House of Commons and showing their ability. I could mention a number of them who I know in the years ahead will make great contributions to the country, but strangely enough this government speaks with two voices. There are the ministers and the parliamentary secretaries. To date two of the parliamentary secretaries have spoken and advocated things in the house that are contrary to the views of the cabinet. One of them explained that the reason for this was that he hoped to convert the ministers in the cabinet. That is a strange philosophy.
What did hon. ministers opposite say when we were in office? I refer in particular to the Minister of Justice. He spoke in the house when we set up the Department of Forestry, and he said there should not be any expansion of the cabinet. As recorded at page 5490 of Hansard for June 28, 1960 he said:
May I say to the Prime Minister that it appears to me that the number of ministers is already too high. In that connection a redistribution of functions and responsibilities between these departments would be highly desirable, and that would be met by the suggestion which I have just made.
Then he went on to say:
Too many ministers at the present time. Could that be met by the suggestion which I made earlier that these two services, which are going to be small divisions of this department, should be brought within the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys giving that department the responsibility for the research that you have in mind?
Then he went on to say this, and this is particularly appropriate, because the statement was made in the house on June 28, 1960:
It is obvious that all the ministers in existence today are not needed. I say that to the Prime Minister with deference, because it has been stated here by our members on this side, and in other places, and I do not want to reflect on any private individual; that is why I am very hesitant about replying to the Prime Minister, other than to deal with the question in a general way and say that surely the right hon. gentleman knows there are ministers who are not charged with sufficient duties or sufficient responsibilities. I do not want to go further than that.
That was his view when in opposition. During the election campaign the associate minister of defence was referred to as the fifth wheel, as totally unnecessary. I ask why this promise is not being carried out. Would the cabinet have lost anything by the carrying into effect of this undertaking given during the campaign?

It has been stated that the new minister of this department will also be the Minister of Defence Production. However, that is not my reading of the clause. I cannot go into all the particulars of the clause but I do believe it must be redrafted. If you will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to clause 8 which states:
In addition to the duties, powers and functions conferred by sections 6 and 7, the minister shall exercise and perform all the duties, powers and functions vested in or required to be exercised and performed by the Minister of Defence Production.
Yet we have an act, and the act is not being amended, which provides that the Department of Defence Production shall have its own minister, who shall receive a salary of $15,000 a year if not occupying another portfolio at the same time. So far as this clause is concerned I suggest it needs to be redrafted.
Regarding the accelerated tendency on the part of the government to get back to the days of an uncontrolled bureaucracy, reference was made by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) to two clauses. Clause 11 was one of them, and it goes a long way in the uncontrolled power it seeks to grant. In addition the powers to be given to the minister under clause 7 are very wide, comprehensive and uncontrolled. There is no control over them in any way. Legislative authority is being given to the minister to do almost anything. The clause reads:
The minister shalldevelop and carry out such programs and projects as may be appropriate
(i) to assist the adaptation of manufacturing industries to changing conditions in domestic and exports markets-
That is a very wide power. It gives him the power to act, when joined with the power of the governor in council, and do almost anything that he chooses to do, provided he can get the cabinet to agree and without regard to parliament.
Clause 11 reads:
The governor in council may authorize and direct departments, branches and agencies of the government of Canada to undertake in the execution of their respective duties and functions such special measures as may be appropriate to facilitate the economic development of any designated area or the adjustment of industry in that area.
Never in my experience in the days of peace, with the exception of the Defence Production Act, have such powers been granted to a minister. There is no control over the governor in council; he can bring in special measures to facilitate the economic development of any designated area or the adjustment of industry in that area, and he does not have to come to parliament for authority. Under this clause the governor in
28, 1963	1691
Establishment of Industry Department council could say to any business in this country in an area that is underdeveloped or is economically slower than other parts of the country, "This is what you have got to do". That is a tremendous power. Even under a socialist government in the province of Saskatchewan, often criticized, that power has never been exceeded. There is nothing about parliament in this bill; there is simply the power given to the governor in council to push business around, to direct them, to order them to do certain things. As I say, there is also the power for the governor in council to bring in special measures appropriate to facilitate the economic development of any designated area.
It was made clear by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that we are opposed to this measure. We will not accept legislation with absolute powers such as these. Hon. members will recall the short cuts of parliament after the war; the pathways of war became the highways of peace. There were two or three departments of government in those days whose deputy ministers are today ministers of the crown in the present cabinet. We thought we were past the threat of the exercise of such powers following the pipe line debate of 1956.
It looks simple on the face of it, Mr. Speaker; but read it. Clause 11 constitutes as nearly as possible a complete abdication by parliament of its rights. Are we going to hand the governor in council the right to determine what special measures shall be carried out? Are we going to give him the power to adjust industry in any area? The adjustment of industry in any area is a matter within the legislative competence of the provincial government concerned. Let that be clear. Are they going into any area in the province of Nova Scotia and say "This is what we determine is the course to be taken by industry here". Are they going to try that in the province of Quebec in any areas in which there is unemployment? Mr. Lesage has not yet had an opportunity of looking into this question, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: There will be another motion of censure.


John George Diefenbaker: We will have another motion of censure by the government of that province. This is a complete intrusion into and interference with the jurisdiction of the provinces over property and civil rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Rosthern said the objective is laudable. Certainly it is. But parliament must determine that the laudability of the objective shall not be an excuse for interference with the rights of the individual and the authority and jurisdiction of the provinces. Let that be clear.
1692	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department
There are many more criticisms that could be offered in respect of this measure, Mr. Speaker. There is the shuffling around from one department to another. We have an example of it in the Department of Agriculture. That Department had authority over the wheat board and over the marketing of wheat, and we sold our wheat while it had that authority. I can understand why they took that authority away from the Minister of Agriculture because he has not been here long enough to understand exactly the authority of that department and its responsibilities.
Why proliferate these agencies of government, these departments? Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this legislation while agreeing with its objectives. My first reason for being opposed to it is that there is no possible justification for increasing the size of this cabinet and, in consequence, the number of the officials necessary to make it operative. Second, there is no reason why the Department of Trade and Commerce could not discharge these responsibilities. This is simply the age old experience of bureaucracy multiplying like rabbits; that is what it amounts to. Expand, bring in new departments, give more authority; the more departments you have-this has been the experience of anybody who has had responsibility in public life-the more desire on the part of those in that department to spend money in order to justify the existence of the department and the responsibilities they discharge. I presume that is the reason the Prime Minister said he was going to rid this country of the associate minister of national defence. Well, he has not done it. Instead of reducing, they increase.
I am not going to deal with the bifurcation of the Department of Agriculture because that matter will be raised at another time. But I would like to know how two ministers with the same powers and the same responsibilities are going to carry on. I think the present Minister of Agriculture will be the senior, because he has a compelling personality. It will be just too bad for the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Tremblay). This is all part and parcel-and I speak very seriously now-of planners planning to pretend they are doing something and thereby being able to say "See what we have done in the first 68 days". This planning, the establishment of this department with the powers that are contained in this bill, cannot but strengthen the authority of bureaucracy and give to those who are charged with the responsibility the power to push Canadians around. We have had enough of that. We stand against that and will continue to take that course.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question, or shall I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not going to make a closing statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already spoken, and as he is not the mover he has no right of reply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Aye.


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


George Clyde Nowlan: On division.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. Drury:: It would perhaps be desirable for me to try to cover on clause 1 some of the points which were raised on second reading but which were not replied to. These will be in the nature of general remarks in answer to specific references.
The hon. member for Perth indicated that he felt some apprehension that this bill was another manifestation of what he called a tendency of the government to take over in a socialist way the entire economy. If the hon. member would read the bill carefully he would see, I think, that the powers of the minister are very limited in extent. There is a definition of his duties, but his powers are not of a character which would be likely to bring about a situation of the kind which the hon. member for Perth envisaged.
The hon. member was also apprehensive about the possibility, or likelihood, of disputes arising between the federal and the provincial governments inasmuch as the provinces clearly have a responsibility in relation to industrial matters within their own provinces, as does the federal government in relation to industry generally within Canada. A similar situation has arisen with regard to other federal government departments, the Department of Agriculture, for example, which has duplicates in each of the provinces. It has been found that given a degree of consultation and co-operation, conflicts do not arise.

I suggest to the hon. member for Perth that this will be the approach of the new ministry of industry-to recognize that there are tasks to be undertaken, some of which can more appropriately be done by the provinces and others which can be best performed by the federal government; some of these are currently being carried out to a limited degree by the Department of Trade and Commerce here in Ottawa.
The purpose of this new ministry is to intensify, extend and make more effective the work which has hitherto been performed within the Department of Trade and Commerce under the aegis of one of the assistant deputy ministers.
The hon. member for Perth also made a suggestion that the purpose accomplished by this bill could have been accomplished equally well by renaming the Department of Trade and Commerce and leaving it substantially as it is. One of his hon. friends, I think it was the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, made the same suggestion, but recognizing that this idea would probably not v/ork, he advanced gradually in the course of his argument to the point where he acknowledged it might be advisable to appoint a deputy minister within the department as a deputy minister for industry. To my way of thinking this was implicit acknowledgment of the necessity of having someone with greater scope, greater stature, than an assistant deputy minister to carry out the functions which should be performed in this field. This is precisely what we propose to provide.
This measure does, also, have the effect of putting the functions now being performed within the Department of Trade and Commerce alongside those of the Department of Defence Production. That department is at present much more intimately concerned with manufacturing in Canada today than is the non-industrial side of the Department of Trade and Commerce whose gaze is, naturally, turned outward and concerned with assisting Canadians to participate in external markets. Because of this, the functions of the present Department of Trade and Commerce are to some extent divided between external considerations and domestic or internal considerations. By removing these internal functions in relation to manufacturing industry and transferring them to the new department it will be possible to link them closely with the domestic operations of the Department of Defence Production and provide for a more effective integration of the skills within the government, bringing them into play to assist industry in Canada. More could be achieved in this way than by simply renaming the Department of Trade and Commerce the Department of Industry and Commerce and letting it go at that.
28, 1963	1G93
Establishment of Industry Department
I was glad to hear that the hon. member for Lake St. John hoped that the new ministry would be effective and would accomplish something. In a sense he appeared to be critical of the present operations of the Department of Trade and Commerce in respect of accomplishment in this particular field, a criticism which I do not feel is wholly justified in that what has been done has been very well and very effectively done. What we on this side say is that there should be more of this. The purpose is not, in respect to domestic manufacturing industry, to change radically either the policies or the approach, but merely to become more efficient and effective.
(Translation):
The hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue (Mr. Martineau) mentioned that the bill should be submitted to the provinces before being passed, but I think that the hon. member will recognize that inasmuch as we are dealing with a field for which the federal government is exclusively responsible, it is unnecessary and even undesirable to submit it to the wishes of the provincial governments.
When the federal authority acts within its own jurisdiction, it has to make its own decisions. It is neither necessary nor desirable to risk any measure being vetoed-if I may use that expression-by the provincial governments.
As far as the present legislation is concerned, it is clear that the federal government has the right, and even the duty, to look after the industrial problem at the national level. That is the object of the bill and there is no suggestion of conflict with the provinces.
That is why it is neither necessary nor desirable, to my mind, to ask the provinces to comment on the bill.
(Text):
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre dwelt at some length on what to me is a very well taken point, that during the past years, while this country has seen a substantial industrial growth, a very substantial increase in industrial output, figures of industrial employment have not kept pace with the growth in industrial output. The problem here, is one of automation-the replacement of muscular effort by machinery, which we all recognize leads to a higher standard of living for those who continue to be employed. But, as I say, it has the consequence that in respect of a given unit of output fewer human muscles are called for. This is a dilemma of which the government is acutely aware and a problem which will have to preoccupy to a large degree the new
1694	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department department of industry. It is a very real problem to which there is no easy or single answer. Obviously, the answer lies principally in accelerating very greatly the rate of industrial growth which has been experienced in this country over the past years, and it is because of this necessity for very greatly increased rate of industrial growth that the government is putting forward this bill to put emphasis on, and to provide a focus for, the prospective intensive efforts to accelerate this rate of growth.
I think the hon. member also raised the question of the reorganization of the Department of Trade and Commerce, with the provision of a separate deputy minister within that department for industrial matters. As I suggested earlier, I am sure that if a group, a section or a department under a deputy minister is necessary and desirable- and, like him, I feel that it is-a better place or a better linkage of association for such a department or deputy minister is in conjunction or in association with the Department of Defence Production, which is already to a very large degree intensively involved with the heavy manufacturing industries of Canada.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, while in favour of establishing the new department, suggested that perhaps the occasion might be taken to abolish the Department of Defence Production. As a consequence of this it would be possible to effect an economy of some 1,520 civil servants. While measures of economy I think are always desirable and certainly are always looked into, I should point out that the establishment of a new department of industry will in no wise lessen the necessity for carrying out and continuing to carry out the present purchasing and development functions now being carried on by the Department of Defence Production. Somebody will still have to do this work, and merely abolishing the department and disestablishing its staff will not make it possible to continue the work being done. As I mentioned earlier, it is intended to make use of the services, skills and knowledge related to manufacturing industry now extant within the Department of Defence Production, and bring these into play in the most extensive way possible in order to avoid the duplication of building up a duplicate staff in the department of industry which would merely overlap with the present knowledge and skills in the Department of Defence Production. I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond will agree that unless we abolish our armed forces, which is unlikely, it will not be possible to abolish the Department of Defence Production.


The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that the government had embarked on a course of what he called directional planning. This is a term which is new to me. I have never seen it or read of it in any of the writings for which the government has been responsible. There have been a number of references on behalf of the government to the necessity for a greater degree of economic planning, but directional planning is a brand new term which unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition failed to define.
I am not quite sure exactly what he is afraid of when he conjures up the bogey of the evils of directional planning. He did refer specifically to a number of clauses which perhaps would have been discussed better at the present stage of business. He was afraid that clause 11 would confer upon the minister the power to order industry in certain designated areas to do anything which the minister wished and rather, I think, created the impression among his listeners that some kind of new economic czar was being brought into being. I can only hope that the Leader of the Opposition did not have time to read this clause. If he had it would have been quite clear that no such powers were conferred and throughout the bill, indeed, as I mentioned earlier, the clauses are not attributions of power or authority to the minister but definitions of duties and responsibilities. Perhaps these can be more adequately examined as we proceed with the clause by clause discussion.
The Leader of the Opposition concluded with the words, which I wrote down, "We will not accept legislation with powers such as that", and the "powers such as that" had reference to conferring on the minister of industry powers which would enable him completely to engage in legislative enactment, I think the words were, without any necessary recourse to parliament. I think the Leader of the Opposition is perhaps misled in what he believes is in the bill. I believe a more careful study of it will indicate to him that no such danger is real nor need it be apprehended. (Translation):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, before
clause 1 is adopted. The minister spoke, a while ago, about economic planning and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamon-tagne) said, the other day, that the government had proposed many planning measures that would not be indicative planning measures only, but would also provide ways to stimulate production. Therefore, here is the question I want to ask the minister:
Is the establishment of this department one of the ways through which industry will be shored up in a particular way, and what are those ways?

(Text):


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think the ways in which it is proposed that the new ministry will have a beneficial influence on industry are indicated in the various clauses oi the bill and rather than read all the clauses perhaps the hon. member would look at them as we come to them. The principal indications are, oi course, in clause 7. That is in relation to the development of industry as such. (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the minister allow me a question?
In view of the fact that we are talking about setting up agencies, can the minister assure the house that before regional agencies are established, the provinces and their departments of industry will be consulted?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think I can assure the
house that we are really anxious that there should be close relations between that new department and the department of industry in all the provinces, and we firmly intend to go about it hand in hand rather than face to face.
(Text):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister ask each department of industry in each province to name the man to be in this agency? Will he consult the provinces with a view to appointing a good man for each province and will he accept suggestions from the provinces?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not sure of the particular agency to which reference is being made. If the suggestion is that in respect of a departmental office in the city of Regina one should ask the government of Saskatchewan to name the man who is going to be an employee of the department of industry, the man who is going to be an employee of the federal government in Regina, I am not sure that this would be the right way to proceed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Do you think it would be preferable to get the consent of the province to the appointment of the chairman of this agency, because this man will be close to the department of industry of the particular province?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: You have reference now to the chairman?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes.
(Translation):


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The chairman of what specific agency? What agency chairman do you mean?
(Text):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, but you use the word "agency" in one of the clauses.
28, 1963	1695
Establishment of Industry Department (Translation):
The area development agency. Will there be a provincial agency?
(Text):
Will each province have a main agency and will the other agencies in that province have to refer to the main agency?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I understand the question it relates to the proposal to establish an area development agency. The boundaries between provinces within Canada are political rather than economic, and in considering economic problems one has to look not to political boundaries but to economic areas or to economic regions. An example of this is that while the maritime region is made up of a number of provinces they are regarded, at least for the purposes of the Atlantic development board, as a single economic region. I am afraid that what the hon. member has reference to here is a suggestion that the area development agency will be operated on a provincial rather than an economic area basis. The plan is to try to make this body operate in relation to economic areas rather than political boundaries or political areas.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In the same order of question, will the minister say how many such economic areas he has in mind?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: At the present moment I am very sorry to say that I cannot. I do not know.


Mr. Ricard:: Will the minister give us an idea of the number of new civil servants that will be required to put this project into operation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As to the number of additional civil servants, I would imagine that initially this would be quite modest. I regret to say that, it being improper to anticipate approval by parliament of this bill, steps have not been taken in advance of parliamentary approval to organize the department.
In general terms, however, the plan would be to bring over or transfer from the Department of Trade and Commerce those functions to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made reference yesterday under the assistant deputy minister of domestic commerce; to take some limited number of people from the Department of Defence Production, and this, in itself, would constitute a large part of the nucleus of the new department.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think we are getting a little bit disorderly, and I was going to deal with this under a later clause; but since we are on clause 1 that usually covers almost everything. I am wondering where the minister gets the power to employ anybody under this bill. I have never seen a clause like this, but that does not mean there are not any,
1696	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department by a long shot. I have looked at the statutes creating several departments, and in each one the governor in council is given the power to appoint a deputy minister, as we have here. However, the similarity stops there.
Then, the other statutes go on to mention other officers, clerks, employees and so on. In other words, the minister, or the governor in council, is given the power to appoint a staff. There is absolutely no power in this bill for the minister to appoint anyone, so far as I can see. There is, however, another clause which says that the minister shall exercise the powers of the Minister of Defence Production. Of course, he exercises those powers because he is the Minister of Defence Production. At the appropriate time I should like to know, also, whether or not we are repealing the Defence Production Act or is the minister being put in a hybrid position? Is he exercising the powers of the Minister of Defence Production while he is the minister of industry?
I should like the minister to explain where the power lies for him to appoint or transfer staff to this department. How can he get a vote to pay these employees? What is the statutory provision under which he is going to employ a staff?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not believe the minister would appoint anybody to the department. Normally, money is provided in the estimates for the employment of a staff, and this, surely, is the legislative authority for such employment and continuing employment. The bills approving the estimates or supplementary estimates provide for the payment of the civil service.
In so far as the authority to transfer personnel is concerned from the Department of Trade and Commerce or the Department of Defence Production into the new department, that authority arises from the Transfer of Duties Act, another statute altogether.


George Clyde Nowlan: Would the minister direct my mind to the specific statute to which he has reference? I am asking him the reason for this peculiar situation which differs from the creation of every other department. The Department of Forestry was the last department created; and you can go right back to a long series of statutes, and you will find the same provisions. Each department may appoint an officer to be called a deputy minister, and so on, to hold office during pleasure. We have that in the bill in front of us. Then, in the statutes creating every other department of government you have this subsection, subsection (2):
Such other officers, clerks and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business


of the department shall be appointed or employed in the manner authorized by law.
This clause is missing from this bill. Without referring to other clauses in the bill, I may say, however, that there is a provision for the employment of outside experts. Their appointments will terminate in December, 1964. I had visions of the minister being very lonely and having only the deputy minister with whom he could play pinochle. I think the matter is one which should be cleared up.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I thank the hon. member for worrying about me and the fact that I might be lonely. However, if he reads again the last few words in that section, subsection (2) which he read, he will find it merely points out that people other than the deputy minister shall be appointed according to law. In effect, all this section means is that it will be unlawful to appoint anybody except according to law. It does not confer any authority on the minister. It does not give any new power to the department. It is merely a statement that people who are engaged must be engaged according to law. I would suggest it will be found this provision is unnecessary, and to the extent that it is unnecessary it is redundant. I will be glad, however, to get a legal opinion on this point and provide it.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not going to get into a legal dissertation on this matter. I should like my hon. friend to consult the hon. gentleman who was sitting alongside him a few minutes ago, and obtain his opinion on the legality of this procedure. I do not agree with him that this is redundant. It is a strange thing that we have had this redundancy running through every statute from confederation down to the present time except this one. I suggest that the department is a creature of the statutes. It is created by statute and its powers are limited by statute. The mere fact that there is power given in some other statute, it does not necessarily follow that the minister has the power here. I think it would be helpful-I am not going to move an amendment-if the minister would give consideration to whether or not such a clause should be added.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was interested in what the minister had to say. I agreed with him when he expressed this sentiment, that the federal government has a duty to concern itself with industry at the federal level. However, it has this duty within the existing framework of the constitution. The minister is now flanked on either side by eminent counsel, so perhaps he might give me some answers.
Some of the provisions of this bill seem to be characteristic of the type of legislation

which was passed during the war, and which had its legality based upon the peace, order and good government section of the British North America Act. Since an emergency had arisen, emergency steps could be taken. Mind you, I can think of a very good defence. Perhaps as long as the hon. gentleman and his colleagues are in power, we could argue that a national emergency always exists. This might be a good defence to raise.
I would call this to his attention, that the particular section dealing with area development, if read very closely, has its legal basis-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not like to interrupt, but I wonder if we could follow the suggestion made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapo-lis-Kings, and try to go at this in an orderly way? Perhaps the hon. member could wait until we get to clause 11, concerning area development, before taking up this point.


Gerald William Baldwin: All right. I will conclude with this suggestion, that I simply call to the attention of the minister that legislation dealing with such things as unemployment insurance and pensions, which of course are different, but to some extent parallels this, necessitated the bringing in of amendments to the British North America Act. I would hope the minister might be able to provide us with an opinion indicating the foundation or the platform on which he has erected his constitutional right to pass this legislation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I would like to ask the
minister-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think the discussion is tending to turn away from clause 1 to other parts of the bill. Could we stick to clause 1, please?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: In the interests of the future of confederation I would like to ask the minister, is it possible to postpone the bill until the next interprovincial conference takes place in Halifax, because I think it would be very wise to ask if the provinces are ready to co-operate?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sure that both the federal government and the provincial governments are pursuing exactly the same end, namely, an acceleration of the industrial growth of Canada, and to assume that the provinces are going to object to this when there is no constitutional basis, no conflict of jurisdiction concerned, would be assuming a whimsicality on their part which would not be justified.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Suppose one of the provinces does not want to co-operate, what then?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It will be my job to win over that lack of co-operation.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, you raised a point of order a few moments ago and asked 28902-5-108
Establishment of Industry Department that the discussion relate to each clause of the bill, which of course you were right to do; but I would like to point out that the questions asked of the minister during the last few minutes are questions of a general nature that come within the ambit of clause 1, which is the general clause. Along the same line of questioning as the hon. member for J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, as can be seen on page 1643 of Hansard, the minister said yesterday:
This will be the first time that a federal government has made provision for a specialized organization to concentrate on area problems-
The point to which I should like to call the attention of the house-I associate here my colleague from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-is that precisely the provinces are there to look after area problems. And the minister himself recognized that in introducing this bill, he is following a new procedure which constitutes another interference in a provincial matter, unless we are misinterpreting his statement.
That is why I would ask the minister to explain what he had in mind when he said that his department would specially concentrate on area problems.
Is the minister in a position to answer that question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I shall answer it in a little while. First of all, I should like to answer the questions put forward by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan).
(Text):
I am advised that the authority to hire and employ people in the public service of Canada is contained in the Civil Service Act as amended a couple of years ago. In effect this means that where there is not specific authority contained in an act to engage and employ people, then that situation is covered by the Civil Service Act as amended. The reason earlier statutes contained this specific authority was that they were enacted prior to the amendment to the Civil Service Act, for which the previous government was responsible, and which makes it no longer necessary for each individual statute to have this specific authority.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Have you the act in front of you, and could you read out the section?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have not got the section here. I would have thought the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, who probably sponsored the legislation, would be fully aware of it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is not that the one which has the oath of secrecy in it?
1698	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Are we to conclude from the answer the minister gave me a little while ago, that we are to be left in the dark completely, and that we will not know how many employees will be required to bring this project into reality? I would like to have some kind of an idea of how many more civil servants this new project will require.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the hon. member will be aware that in an endeavour to construct a theoretical organization, a theoretical plan, in advance, and be sure that this is what is ultimately going to be needed, before one has had a chance to find out what are the problems, to analyse the needs of industry and, having analysed them, to discover and work out the best means of meeting these needs-until one has done all this one cannot say precisely what the final answer is. If I were as omniscient as that, we would not need a department; I could do it all myself.
What I do say is that initially the number of additional people required will be very modest indeed, having in mind the number currently engaged in the Department of Trade and Commerce and in related functions in the Department of Defence Production. But in any event, as the hon. member knows, the numbers proposed for each succeeding year will be submitted to parliament, and in the form of the estimates from year to year will be approved by parliament.
This is no blank cheque, as has been suggested, being offered to this new ministry, but to expect the minister with a non-existent department-and it is the department that works out these features-to provide all the answers is a little difficult.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Surely the minister has made an analysis of the problems with which the new ministry would deal, before proposing the creation of it?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Surely, Mr. Chairman, there must be a difference between 100, 200, 300 and 500? I cannot help but conclude that we are giving a blank cheque here, because the minister cannot say how many employees will be required. We have every confidence in the ability of the minister to conduct the department in a very orderly way, but we have nothing on which to base our estimates.


Paul Raymond Martineau: We would like to know what the minister means when he says a modest requirement. What does he mean by "modest"?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Up until the end of this year I would think 100 additional would be an outside figure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the minister consider that probably more are required now than before the events of the past 10 days?
[Mr. Baldwin.l


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Well, in the last 10 days nothing has occurred, in spite of the insinuations of the hon. member, to make the numbers needed any larger, to carry out this job.


Robert William Prittie: Related to this question of the number of employees, I wonder will the staff of the Department of Defence Production be used in establishing this new department and operating it in its initial stages?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, assistance will be sought from the present staff of the Department of Defence Production in the organizing of and providing advice to the new department, and in providing some of the skills required to produce the solutions that are needed. As I tried to point out earlier, full advantage will be taken of the talents, facilities, knowledge and skills which now exist in the Department of Defence Production in relation to specialized industrial areas. Use will be made of those talents and skills rather than duplicating them in the new department.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, in his earlier remarks the minister, in answering the question which has been raised previously about cutting down on the Department of Trade and Commerce and transferring its functions to the new department, attempted to make out a case for a closer connection-as I understood him; and I do not want to misquote him at all-between the Department of Defence Production and industry than exists between the Department of Trade and Commerce and industry. I am not satisfied that this is the case. I was talking yesterday about weakening the Department of Trade and Commerce by cutting out from it a large and effective branch now called domestic commerce under an assistant deputy minister, with four branches underneath that, the standards branch, the industrial promotion branch, the small business branch and the industrial design branch, all of which have a direct bearing on industry in Canada.
My argument was that we have, in effect, functioning a department able to do the work which is suggested for the proposed new department. I consider it is a mistake to disrupt the organized work of the Department of Trade and Commerce by creating this new department of industry, which involves drawing away from the Department of Trade and Commerce some of the skilled and capable personnel who are already there, breaking a link between industry and that department which has already been strongly established, and trying to set it up again. Here you will have a new minister, a new deputy minister and a new department starting more or less from scratch making contact with industry and determining what are the requirements

for government assistance to industry. The minister indicated, I thought, that the Department of Defence Production has a closer link with industry than has the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I question that very much.
What does the Department of Defence Production do? It gets its instructions from the Department of National Defence. I remember the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe telling us here years ago that the Department of Defence Production simply carried out the instructions from the Department of National Defence. That was when he made the famous statement that if they wanted a gold plated piano, the Department of Defence Production would have to procure it for them. But what does the Department of Defence Production do? It allocates the orders to fulfil the requirements of the Department of National Defence, and of course it comes in contact with a large number of industrial concerns in Canada. In the estimates for the fiscal year 1963-64 for the Department of National Defence, under the heading of procurements, adding together the three services there is a placement of orders amounting to about $300 million. In the Department of Defence Production's estimates there is an allotment of $10 million for development projects. Therefore to that extent the Department of Defence Production has a link with industry in the country. However, as I pointed out yesterday when quoting figures from the dominion bureau of statistics, there are in Canada almost 37,000 establishments in the field of manufacturing and the gross value of products in 1959 was $23 billion. That may be quite a bit higher now; I have not the latest figures. So the Department of Defence Production is only touching a segment of the industrial framework of Canada, whereas the Department of Trade and Commerce ranges over the whole field and has contact with industrial establishments and the manufacturing industry right across this country.
That was the purpose some years ago-I think it was in 1957 or 1958-of our establishing the small business branch within the Department of Trade and Commerce, to make contact with the thousands of small businesses across the country. This is a much more wide-ranging contact with industry than has the Department of Defence Production. I do not suggest that the Department of Defence Production is not doing good work with industry, and certainly with heavy industry, but there are other departments which similarly have contacts with industry in this country. The Department of Public Works is constantly letting out contracts for one thing and another; certainly it has a great interest 28902-5-1081
Establishment of Industry Department in the manufacturing industry. The Department of External Affairs in administering the Colombo plan allots contracts each year running to about $35 million.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I do not want the hon. member to make a mistake. The Department of External Affairs places its contracts through the Department of Defence Production for the Colombo plan.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a new-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This has been done for the past five years.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the minister is speaking with the voice of authority, but I happened to have the administration of the Colombo plan under my jurisdiction for a considerable period of time. Therefore may I just correct him and say that has not been the case. It may, within the last year or so, have been worked that way, but it was not the case before; the administration of the Colombo plan and the allocation of the contracts came under the Department of Trade and Commerce while I was with that department. Then it was at my suggestion, in cooperation with the secretary of state for external affairs, that the allocation of the contracts was transferred to the Department of External Affairs. It may have been by arrangement and agreement that the Department of Defence Production has assisted in allocating the contracts within the last year or two. I am not speaking without some experience of these matters, and I am sure the minister will take that into account.
My point is this. As important as is the Department of Defence Production, it is not such a major link with industry in this country as the minister was trying to make out when he was attempting to build up a case for the department of industry, with the assistance of the Department of Defence Production, describing it as the link with industry in this country and, in effect, cutting away from the Department of Trade and Commerce the work that has previously been done and is being done so effectively by that department. My argument yesterday, and I continue it today, is that this is a mistake, in that a very strong department, trade and commerce-which could be called industry and commerce-is being weakened by this proposal. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out this morning, this idea arose, apparently, some years ago, in the mind of the present Minister of Finance. His program, enunciated in some of his writings, has now been placed before parliament without a careful consideration of parliamentary procedure and the methods by which government is carried on in this country. The hon. gentleman
1700	HOUSE: OF
Establishment of Industry Department took an outside point of view and every person in this chamber, if he is frank, will now agree that the hon. gentleman has revised some of his opinions on how parliament operates. I think all of us, years ago, before we were elected to this chamber, had a very different view as to how governments and parliaments function than we have now, when we are experienced in the ways of this chamber. The Minister of Finance, when he was unaware of parliamentary procedure, sold this idea to the Liberal party, used it during the election campaign and encouraged people to think that this motion could be put into operation almost overnight. Consequently, we have bills such as this before us composed of ideas formulated before the Minister of Finance entered the parliamentary scene. I think he would now be prepared to revise some of his opinions, not only with regard to this matter, but with respect to some other matters following the experience he has had.
I am suggesting that this is hasty, ill conceived legislation proposing a new department to fulfil a function which is already being carried out by the Department of Trade and Commerce. I agreed yesterday, and I agree today, that extra emphasis on industry in Canada is welcome. We are not objecting to that at all. But when this extra emphasis could be applied through a department which is already a going concern, we think both time and money are being wasted. A new department cannot be created in a week or in a month. We have never claimed that the Department of Forestry became effective within a month of the passing of the bill setting it up. We have never claimed that some of the boards we set up became effective within a month of their being constituted.


An hon. Member:: Sixty days.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I recall that when we set up the national energy board, one of the best boards of its kind, the board required some time to get organized, to engage officials to assist members, and, generally, to get sorted out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he recall that the national energy board, also, was recommended by the present Minister of Finance?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was in the fortunate position, when I piloted through the house the bill setting up the national energy board, that I did not know the present Minister of Finance except by name. Even then, I was not impressed by some of the things he was doing and I am very much less impressed now that I have seen him sitting opposite in this chamber. He may have had an idea with regard to the national energy board, in which


case I compliment him on having had at least one good idea in the course of a lifetime. He has had a lot of bad ideas since. Has the hon. gentleman any other questions?
For the reasons I have given, the proposals bandied about during the election campaign that a department of industry would be set up within 60 days and that there would be a great development of industry in Canada are misleading, because, first of all, the 60 days have elapsed without this having come about, and in the second place the bill has been very hastily drafted. If it is passed as it now stands and if a department of industry is set up as suggested by the government it will not be able to function effectively for a considerable time. So little faith, indeed, have hon. gentlemen opposite in the functioning of this new department that they have made provision for temporary appointments. Once again, they are saying, in effect, that the civil servants of Canada are not competent to do this job. I say that the civil service of Canada, as I know it in the Department of Trade and Commerce, is competent to do this work and to carry on with it. There is no need to appoint these temporary assistants who are supposed to have some specialized knowledge. I do not accept the case which the minister was attempting to make that the Department of Defence Production is in a better position to make contacts between industry and government circles than the Department of Trade and Commerce. I do not accept that. I think it is wrong.


Mr. Gray:: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the president of the Canadian Manufacturer's Association recently said that the new department of industry is a concept they have long advocated?


Jay Waldo Monteith: On a point of order, I wish the hon. member would read the article by Mr. Whitelaw, the general manager, which points out that they did not recommend a new department but simply the strengthening of the branch which exists within the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I might say I am quoting from a speech given by a member of the opposition when this question was being discussed on the resolution stage as reported at page 1174 of Hansard.


An hon. Member:: Get it up to date.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The question has been answered effectively by my hon. friend.


Mr. Teillei:: Why not answer it yourself?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would give the same answer. I know Mr. Whitelaw. I know what they have considered with regard to the development of industry in this country.

My hon. friend from Perth, as appears on page 1644, quoted the general manager of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Mr. J. C. Whitelaw, Q.C. as saying:
At the same time, the association has made it clear-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would consider starting earlier in the quotation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not mind.
This role amply justifies the government proposal to establish a full cabinet voice for the manufacturing industry through the designation of a minister and department of industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sure the hon. member does not know that was dated May 3, 1963. I think the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings pointed out that this had been the view of the association in the past, but that it had not been put forward more recently.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is from the 92nd annual report of the C.M.A.-the same thing we are talking about.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish to start again so that this will be reported in Hansard without interruption and so that those who read Hansard will have a clear story. The hon. member for Perth, as reported on page 1644 of Hansard, says this:
I should like to point out that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in their report of the 92nd annual general meeting, do recommend a department of industry: but the general manager of that organization, Mr. J. C. Whitelaw, Q.C.. added these remarks:
This role amply justifies the government proposal to establish a full cabinet voice for the manufacturing industry through the designation of a minister and department of industry.
At the same time, the association has made it clear that it does not advocate the creation of yet another ministry and department, believing that the appropriate ends could be accomplished by reorganization and re-emphasis of existing facilities.


David Vaughan Pugh: Laugh now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Is that not precisely what is being done by this bill? It is reorganizing the Department of Defence Production precisely as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association recommended.


David Vaughan Pugh: What about trade and commerce?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is attempting to effect a very serious depletion of the Department of Trade and Commerce. It is not reorganizing the Department of Defence Production but just tagging it along in the new department. As I pointed out on the resolution stage, the government has failed to pay attention to
28, 1963	1701
Establishment of Industry Department the Glassco commission report which suggested an entirely different function for the Department of Defence Production. So once again this government has blundered along in great haste in order to make a show of doing something, and it is making a mistake.
I should like to ask the minister to tell us the effect that this is going to have on the Department of Trade and Commerce. I regret that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not here today during the passage of this bill to give us his views so that we can hear what he says about the cutting down of his department.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I may say that for some considerable time now the present Minister of Trade and Commerce has publicly and privately fully endorsed the idea of a new department of industry, and the incorporating into it of certain of the domestic functions of the Department of Trade and Commerce as is proposed by the bill. I want to make that perfectly clear. If it would satisfy the hon. gentleman, I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be glad, were he not otherwise engaged on government duties, to come here and say this himself. He was one of the first to endorse this idea.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, naturally I and every hon. member accepts the statement of the minister. I accept his suggestion; but I should like to hear in this chamber the views of the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to setting up the department of industry and cutting down the activities of his own department. I will be very much surprised indeed if he will publicly in this chamber give his approbation to this scheme. In effect he will have to say, if he repeats what has been said by the minister, that the Department of Trade and Commerce as it is now organized should be cut down by one quarter or one half. In effect he will have to say that he cannot accept responsibility for the branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce dealing with domestic commerce; and he will have to say that he does not feel very happy about the Department of Trade and Commerce and that he is content to see a section of it, almost half of it, cut away from him. If he is prepared to say that in this chamber, of course we will have to accept it, but we will express our regret that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce takes that view of his department.
I doubt very much if any minister of any department at any time has willingly surrendered any portion of his department. It is not human nature to do things of that kind. In this particular instance the taking
1702	HOUSE OF
Establishvient of Industry Department away from the Department of Trade and Commerce of the domestic commerce branch is cutting out a very vital part of it. Because, as I attempted to point out the other day, there is integration among those branches, and the branch that deals with domestic commerce is also closely linked with the branch dealing with export trade and so on. So this is why I consider this truncating of the Department of Trade and Commerce to be a very serious matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman will permit me to explain why the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not here today. He regrets it very much, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in Winnipeg discharging a duty which was given back to that department, having been stripped away from it by the previous government because they were not willing to trust it to the former hon. member for Broadview.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In days gone by a former minister of agriculture under a Liberal government, the Right Hon. "Jimmy" Gardiner, always advocated that the functions of the wheat board should be discharged by the minister of agriculture. But there was a conflict of interest in the cabinet of those days and the late C. D. Howe insisted on retaining the functions of the wheat board under his jurisdiction in the Department of Trade and Commerce. Eventually disaster overcame the Liberal government because of that decision. I just sound a warning to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce that some difficulties may face him with regard to assuming once more the duties of the wheat board. It worked very well under the Department of Agriculture for the last two and a half years. Why was the sudden change made? The minister has raised this question. Why was the sudden change made? It is like a sop, because the section dealing with domestic commerce is going to be taken away from the Minister of Trade and Commerce and put into a new ministry.
But I have been prevented by this question from asking the minister to let us know whether the four branches under domestic commerce in the Department of Trade and Commerce are going to be transferred to the proposed new department, namely the standards branch, the industrial promotion branch, the small business branch and the industrial design branch. Let him tell us whether those four branches are being transferred to the new department. Is the assistant deputy minister who has had charge of those branches moving over at the same time? How many of the personnel of those branches will be coming along with him, and has this been


thought out, decided upon and planned? I should like the minister to let us have information with regard to that.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member who has just spoken can know the Minister of Trade and Commerce very well. He suggests that when one becomes a minister the inevitable preoccupation of such individual is to hang on as tenaciously as he can to all the functions with which he finds himself endowed and not let them go, and that this is the motivation of ministers. I will not talk about myself, but I know the present Minister of Trade and Commerce and I might say that in looking at his duties this is not his motivation. His interest is to see that the things the government of Canada should do are done in the most effective manner. It is for this reason and not because of a preoccupation with retaining an empire that he agrees with the establishment of the new department of industry.
In answer to the hon. member's question, the branches which will be transferred, together with the assistant deputy minister, would be all those he mentioned with the exception of the standards branch. The reason that the standards branch will remain with the Department of Trade and Commerce is that the operations of that branch have more relation to external trade than they have to manufacturing industries in domestic commerce in Canada. But three of the four branches together with the assistant deputy minister, for whom I personally have the highest regard, under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act will be transferred to the new department.
(Translation):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a few questions of the minister along the same line. On the motion for second reading of the bill, he said that one of the objectives of the new department would be to make known to industry the services supplied by the federal government.
I believe that it was precisely the purpose of the small business branch. Could the minister tell us whether the new department will perform duties other than those which are exercised at present by the small business branch in the Department of Trade and Commerce?
And a little further he said:
In order to provide for an efficient liaison between the department and the provincial governments and the industry in the various areas of Canada, it is intended to open branches in the major regional centres.
I should like the minister to tell me how many of these branches will be established.

He stated also that the new department would help to find a way to manufacture in this country a number of products which are imported at the present time. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I contend that those are precisely the functions which the Department of Trade and Commerce discharges very effectively. It is much more the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Commerce to concern itself with domestic manufacturing and to try to increase it in order to improve our foreign trade. He said that it was difficult to separate one from the other and that another function of the new department would be to pursue more vigorously some programs already implemented by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
That is precisely the crux of the matter. The programs that are proposed, and which the minister has studied, are those that have already been put into effect, and quite successfully, by the Department of Trade and Commerce, especially if one considers the way our foreign trade has kept up and increased during the past years.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) himself, when he presented that motion to the house, said that it was not anything new. Then if we do not make any changes, it would be better to leave things as they are, because the Department of Trade and Commerce has worked efficiently to the advantage of our industry and foreign trade.
There is another point that comes to my mind, and that is the name of this department. Its counterpart in the province of Quebec is called department of industry and commerce. Now, how are you going to translate that name into good French; department of industry?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I suppose that department of industry is translated into French as "minis-tere de l'industrie". In my opinion, that is relatively good French.


Paul Raymond Martineau: And how is minister of trade and commerce to be translated?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This is not my problem, and it is not up to me to solve it. For the time being, I am dealing with the department of industry. If the hon. member wants to deal with those special problems, I must say that it is not my job to solve them.
The hon. member mentioned the small business branch which comes under the present department. It is obvious that in this field, our means might be the same as those of the provincial governments. It is particularly with regard to local small businesses
28, 1963	1703
Establishment of Industry Department that we may come in conflict, but I shall take the necessary steps to prevent any conflict and to work in agreement with the provincial governments.
Even in matters of detail, we shall try to avoid duplication of efforts and of the work carried out by the departments of industry, both federal and provincial. We shall strive to expand and to make more effective the present activities of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and of his officials in the field of industry.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to put a very important question to the minister, which will affect perhaps the future of the bill.
The bill actually provides that the federal government may enter into agreements or arrangements with the provinces. Does this mean that the federal government wants to set up joint programs? Is this what the minister means in this bill by agreements, which would be some kind of joint programs with one or several provinces?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: "In agreement", as we say in English. For an agreement to exist, the two parties must agree on something. Consequently, if both parties are in agreement on something, there is no reason to complain.
If you speak of programs on which the parties concerned do not see eye to eye, you cannot say that they are in agreement since there is nothing they agree upon.
What we are looking for, is to be always in agreement with the provinces.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the question is that there have been other such agreements with the provinces in the past and the latter were often dissatisfied.
I can give you the example of New Brunswick which criticized the joint programs just like the province of Quebec and other provinces. The premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Smallwood, has at times complained about certain agreements with the central government.
That is why I say that, as has been proven by past experience, justice has never been entirely done by the federal government through those agreements.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the hon. member means that the federal government in the last five years has never cared about it, I agree entirely with him and we see eye to eye.


An hon. Member:: That is why you have been defeated.
1704	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: But here, I am referring to agreements. We may agree with someone but circumstances may change and we must endeavour to reach another agreement, and that is what we should do.


An hon. Member:: You mean a dialogue.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, a dialogue.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, the minister's comments prompt me to ask him another question to wit, whether the jurisdiction of his department has been or will be jointly studied with the corresponding provincial department of other provinces.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It has not been studied, but I am convinced that if I show goodwill to my opposite numbers of other provinces, and if they reciprocate, we will have no great difficulty in reaching an agreement.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct to the minister a question which comes to my mind when I see the three ministers on the front benches. Does the government intend, when appointing a commissioner and a deputy commissioner for area development, to select persons who have already been active in politics in order to replace the officials who have now gone into politics? Because I see in front of me the hon. member who was formerly deputy minister of justice, the member who was deputy minister of national defence and, last but not least, the former secretary to the privy council. Can the minister tell us whether the government intends to appoint to these offices of commissioner and deputy commissioner for area development, persons who have at a certain time been active in politics?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Certainly the present government has no intention to act in this way. These officials will be chosen for their qualifications and their technical competence irrespective of their opinions or even their past political activities.


Clément Vincent: Even if they are Conservatives?


Mr. Dupuis:: If they are competent.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In my opinion, that is evidence of poor judgment, but it may be overcome.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I was
pleased to hear the minister speak of the consideration and the goodwill he has shown the provincial ministers. I wonder whether he was so tactful as to submit the bill now before us to his provincial colleagues of the industry and commerce department?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman, we did not submit it because I think that the bill does not involve any conflict of jurisdiction with my provincial colleagues.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, the minister may think there could not be any conflict; however, his provincial colleagues may think otherwise. Would the minister not agree that it could be beneficial to have consultation before discussing this bill which could infringe on the jurisdiction of the provinces even though the minister does not share that opinion? After studying what has been done in the Quebec legislature, we find that the minister's understanding of autonomy is not necessarily shared by the provincial administration.
(Text):


Mr. Leboe:: I should like to ask the minister a number of questions, and I should like to hear from him whether he wishes to have them one, two, three, or if he wishes to answer them individually. Perhaps the minister could answer them individually.
First of all, I should like to refer to his statement that automation was a dilemma and the answer to this was accelerating greatly industrial growth. In connection with that statement, I should like him to tell the committee whether he believes that the purpose of industry is to provide jobs, or is the purpose of industry to provide goods and services?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Both.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Yes, but which should have the emphasis? I know that if you provide the goods and services, the jobs follow. However, as a person who has been in industry for a good many years I feel, and I am wondering whether the minister feels the same way, that the purpose of industry is to provide goods and services of the highest quality at the lowest possible price, and incidental to this is the matter of jobs. Would he agree with this statement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would not agree with it in the way in which it is phrased. The ideal, obviously, would be to have an industrial structure which employs everybody who is seeking a job, even at the expense of some efficiency in the production of goods and services in terms of cost. Unfortunately, if one, by reason of employing too many individuals and too little in the way of automation, allows costs to rise, the demand for those goods is diminished. It is demand which is the

effective creator of jobs. Demand will go down as costs rise, and where you strike a balance is changing continuously. You must strike a balance between efficiency of production, and consequently remain competitive in world markets, and the provision of jobs.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I must say at once that I do not agree with the minister at all. I recall under a former Conservative government many years ago, there was a great, massive machine on the shoulder of the highway which four gallons of gasoline would have moved out of the road so that 200 men with wheelbarrows and shovels could have gone in to work. However, they spent two days with a block and tackle to move this machine out of the road so that they could get the men with the wheelbarrows and shovels in to work. This illustrates the minister's statement, and I must say at once it is a statement with which I do not agree. The purpose of industry must be the production of goods and services.
The principle that is in the bill is in the minds of the people who are going to take the powers of the ministry, and they feel it is a matter of jobs. We have millions of jobs waiting. We have schools to build, roads, bridges, sidewalks, sewers, sustained yield forestry operations; we have a tremendous amount of work to be done that does not involve industry. The minister brought out the point that if we will provide these jobs, then the public will become a market for the goods. As one who has spent a good deal of time in industry, I know that industry is quick to respond to a market. You will not need to worry about a department of industry at all if you get these 565,000 people back to work. We need to raise our standard of living. We could have poverty amidst plenty if the minister's ideas were put into effect.
Now, the acceleration of industry, about which the minister has been talking, is not going to be used to buy these particular goods, but will be used to pay the bills that are already contracted. If the minister feels that this is the role of the department of industry about which he is talking, I am certainly opposed to it. I think here we are looking towards some sort of regimentation if we follow the lines the minister has suggested, whereby we are going to improve our employment position at the expense of production. This is not right. This is wrong in principle. I believe that, on reflection, the minister would certainly agree. I would say that if he were to refer this matter to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, a group of individuals whose prime purpose is the production of goods and services, they would not agree quite so wholeheartedly with him. They would support the point of view I take.
28902-5-109
28. 1963	1705
Establishment of Industry Department
Now, I think the minister should at least give some indication that the emphasis of this new department will be directed towards the idea of automation to the extent that we will have a lot more labour working in the area of providing streets, universities, schools and hospitals that are so badly needed. There are many things, you know, that need to be done so far as Canada, incorporated, is concerned. If the minister will visualize Canada as a corporate body, he will see immediately that these things are possible within the framework of the labour force we have, the technological advances we have made in the past and which we have within our grasp.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell us what method he intends to follow with regard to the staffing of the new department to be set up when the bill now before us is passed? By means of civil service competitions, or will the appointments be left to his discretion or to that of the officials of the new department? Briefly, what method will apply to the selection of the required staff?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the new department will be administered in the same way as the other federal departments.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the minister to give us more information, because I think that he did not answer my question adequately. That he will proceed in the same way as in the other departments, is all very well, but it does not answer my question.
I would like to know whether the personnel will be appointed according to the competition system, under the civil service commission, or whether the choice will be left to the minister's discretion. To my mind, the answer is very simple, considering the two methods just mentioned.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the appointment will be made partly in one way and partly in the other.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, to mention only one or two instances, can the minister tell us how the commissioner and deputy commissioner will be chosen?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, in the case of the commissioner and the deputy commissioner, they will be appointed by the governor in council.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: So that, in fact, those appointments would be within the minister's jurisdiction?
1706	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman, they are the cabinet's business.


Mr, Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the minister, and if he is agreeable, I can assure him that the bill under discussion will be carried much faster.
After five o'clock the house proceeds to the consideration of private members' business, and, more particularly, public bills. Will the minister promise the house that immediately after five, when the regular business of the house is through, he will sit down and write to all the provinces, and send them a copy of the bill? If we secured the provinces' opinion and suggestions, this legislation would be much more efficient, because it would reflect more accurately the provincial needs. I feel sure that such a course of action would serve the interests of the country's industry, as well as the cause of Canadian unity.
Should the minister react favourably to my request, he would get the full and unconditional co-operation of all the members on this side of the house. By postponing the debate on the legislation for four or five days, he would have sufficient time to write to the provinces, and obtain their suggestions and their views. I repeat that in so doing the minister would probably act in the best economic interests of this nation, for the success of his plans rests on provincial co-operation.
(Text):


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I cannot agree with the hon. member that this would either serve a useful purpose or expedite the progress of the bill.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I would like to ask another question of the minister with regard to the hiring of personnel. Let me take the example of an ordinary clerk. On what basis would such an employee be hired? Would it be through a competition conducted by the civil service?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remark that earlier this afternoon, following second reading, the minister made an attempt to answer some of the questions posed by myself and other hon. members during second reading. I do not accept those answers in their entirety, but I shall leave further argument until we come to the individual clauses of the bill.
However, I would like to ask the minister, who has had anything to do with the preparation of the bill? Despite the three wise men now sitting on the front benches, I am wondering if any of the three wise men from Toronto had anything to do with the preparation of the bill?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has been a member of a previous government and, as I understand it, has been a member of the house for some time. I have been here only a limited time and I am not fully familiar with all the rules, but it has been my understanding that it is a principle of public life that responsibility for ideas put forward is accepted by either a member or a minister, and neither is entitled to take refuge in claiming that these were somebody else's ideas. This, I understand, is not the procedure in public life anyhow, and further, that it is not proper to inquire of a minister who specifically advised a course of action. Now, if my understanding is incorrect I am prepared to stand corrected, but I do not think the hon. member really is asking me who suggested what in this bill.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Then may I ask the minister this question: Was the bill prepared by the law officers of the crown in the normal
way?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not quite sure what the hon. member's definition of "normal way" would be, but I can say this bill was prepared by the law officers of the crown.


Mr. Winkler:: Following that line of questioning, and inasmuch as my understanding is that this bill was fostered to some degree by the thinking of the present Minister of Finance, and maybe his assistants, I am wondering if possibly some further consideration might be given to the cabinet giving further consideration to the bill? As a matter of fact I have an article in front of me from this afternoon's Ottawa Citizen which suggests there may be a switch in those portfolios. I do not know how authentic this is, but it states that possibly one minister, whose thinking this was maybe, is leaving the treasury benches, and it might be wise to give it further consideration.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that gets us nowhere at all. The cabinet has not the slightest interest in reviewing this bill.


David Vaughan Pugh: I am not quite sure of the sort of basis of expansion that the minister has been talking about. For instance, where has the Department of Defence Production fallen down? Has there been any trouble in getting orders, or getting manufacturers to submit bids, as the department stands now? Are there any specific instances which should be improved?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is not suggested, and I hope I did not suggest there had been any falling down on the part of the Department of Defence Production, or that it had in any

way been inadequate in performing the functions for which it was designed and organized. I did suggest that the department was being looked at, in the light of the recommendations made by the royal commission on government organization, with a view to extending its functions into another field. But, this is not to suggest that the Department of Defence Production has been in any way delinquent or inadequate in performing its job. I had no intention of saying that, if indeed I did convey any such impression.


David Vaughan Pugh: Then, dealing with the Department of Trade and Commerce, the suggestion is that certain portions of that department are going to be moved over to the new department of industry. Would the minister delineate those, and also explain why they would be better off in industry than trade and commerce?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I hope, Mr. Chairman, I will not have to do this again, as I did it about 15 minutes ago. Three of the four divisions at present under the jurisdiction of the assistant minister of trade and commerce for domestic commerce are being moved over to the new department of industry. Of the four divisions under his present jurisdiction, the only one that is remaining is the standards branch, whose functions are more directly and more importantly related to external trade than they are to the domestic manufacturing industry.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the minister's explanation and one of the objectives which he expressed was to intensify and expand-I believe these were the words he used-the whole of our industrial complex, or whatever one likes to call it, with this new department. How would this department do that as against the present Department of Trade and Commerce? I am thinking back. Is the minister going to cut out trade fairs, and the like, as they have been set up in the last two years by the department, bearing in mind the results these had on exports in 1961 and 1962 and our credit balance?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, all the functions the Department of Trade and Commerce have been carrying on in relation to trade promotion, such as export conferences and similar activities, will continue to be carried on by the Department of Trade and Commerce, which will continue to have that name. The intensification planned in the operations of those divisions which are coming over to the new department-which will mean an addition of the order of, initially, some 100 personnel-will enlarge and intensify the work of those who have been concerned with the promotion of the domestic manufacturing 28902-5-109J
28. 1963	1707
Establishment of Industry Department industry. This will in no way conflict with or reduce the efforts of those who have engaged in the promotion of external trade; that will remain with the Department of Trade and Commerce.


David Vaughan Pugh: Continuing on this line, Mr. Chairman, what would be the liaison between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the department of industry? I am thinking along the line of our hoping to increase manufacturing and output both for the home market and for export. Where would the liaison come here?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The liaison will be at all levels, starting with the cabinet committee on economic policy and going right down to the hierarchy.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the congenial minister, first of all, when he rises to answer the question I posed to him as to what the emphasis was going to be, because I am still interested in the emphasis of this department. I would also like to ask him whether he believes that the ideal position in Canada as related to this department and the Department of Trade and Commerce, according to the statement he made, is to have imports and exports in balance. I mean multilaterally; I am not speaking about unilaterally.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The ideal position obviously would be to have a balance in respect of our payments. It is the payments, rather than exports or imports of commodities, which are of significance. In the export and import field one has to consider not only commodities but the invisible items, such as the tourist trade, freight, shipping and assorted monetary payments such as dividends, interest and the flow of capital. So what one would hope for is that we would be able to move as rapidly as possible to a position of balance in respect of our total payments. In so far as we are committed, and are likely to be for some time, to a net deficit in respect of interest and dividends, this means that some of this deficit has to be made up by a favourable balance in respect of commodities, tourist and freight.


Bert Raymond Leboe: On the same question, Mr. Chairman, the minister followed along the line I had in mind when he referred to the balance payments, because I consider that with regard to imports and exports the paper is a guarantee that some day the goods will come back. If I have one of your dollars, sooner or later you will want it back again and I will trade it back for some goods.
I take it that the minister agrees that in the total over-all picture the ideal position is a balance of exports and imports, including paper, interest, dividends, and so on. If
1708	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department that is true, the minister's statement that the department of industry was going to emphasize the building of industries in Canada which would produce goods and services now imported would in effect, I believe, mean that we are going to cut down on our imports. If this is true, taking a static position as far as growth is concerned, at the moment, it means that our exports must, if we are going to be working toward an ideal situation, decline as well, because if we do not have our exports decline we are going to be in the position of "it is the monkey that scratches that has the fleas". In other words, we are going to have the paper and somebody else is going to have our goods until they come after our paper and we get the goods back again. If we are to assume that the position the minister has stated is correct, that the total balance is the important thing-and I think that is right-surely we must recognize the fact that if we export more goods than we import, we are actually poorer, because the goods are gone and we have only paper until we get the goods back. As I have said before, if you have a Cadillac and would like to export it to me, I will give you the paper; I will wear out the Cadillac and you can wear out the paper.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, further to the remarks I made earlier, the answer I received from the minister was indeed very interesting, particularly when he said he did not think his cabinet colleagues would be remotely interested in considering the terms of this bill further. I think that up to this moment some rather constructive suggestions have been made, and the question I would like to put to the minister is this. I am wondering whether he had the agreement or the good wishes of both the ministers concerned in this particular case, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the promotion of this bill; and did they agree with the change that is going to take place, particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Did he agree with the transfer of this part of his jurisdiction?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Surely, Mr. Chairman, this is what is defined under the house rules as a hypothetical question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw attention to what the hon. member for Grey-Bruce said just a moment ago and the rather unusual statement of the minister, which I wrote down, "The cabinet has not the slightest interest in reviewing this bill". May I say in all kindness to the minister, based on some experience here, that this is not the best approach toward getting legislation through the house. There are other ways of getting legislation through than
[Mr. Leboe.l

simply brushing aside the suggestions of an opposition. It does not matter what the government may think of the opposition; the opposition sometimes considers that it is putting forward constructive suggestions for improvement, and a government, surely, should be interested in having placed on the statute books a bill which will stand up under usage and will not have to be amended immediately at the next session of parliament.
Therefore when the minister says the cabinet has not the slightest interest in reviewing this bill, this is rather discouraging to members of the House of Commons who are giving serious consideration to this matter and are trying to persuade the government to do exactly what the minister says they are not going to do. What position does this put us in?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I accept the chastisement which I merited. Perhaps I spoke a little hastily when I said the cabinet has not the slightest interest in reviewing this bill. It was in the context, not of specific suggestions as to ways in which the bill might be changed or looked at again, but in the context that there was to be a shake up in the cabinet and that different ministers might have different points of view in looking at it. It was with this in mind I made the statement I did.
If hon. members have specific suggestions to make in relation to the clauses of this bill, none of which we have looked at yet, I will be glad to see that those specific suggestions are given every consideration.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I had thought there were terms in the bill which might be in the nature of directions and I wanted to make sure there was a degree of co-operation about these things. That is the reason I brought up this subject. I hope this question of ministerial discretion will be looked at closely, because many people throughout the country are concerned about it. Indeed, representations have been made to me about this matter. Thus, I hope the government will see to it that these powers of ministerial discretion, which are broad at this moment, are re-examined.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is one aspect of this subject which interests me. The new minister is supposed to have all the powers of the Minister of Defence Production. Is it the intention of the government to invest in this new department the power to become a general procurement or purchasing agency in respect of all the goods required by the three branches of the armed services?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, that responsibility for planning and for providing for the goods and

services required by the three armed services will continue to be carried out by the Department of Defence Production.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But was it not envisaged that responsibility for procurements and purchases of this kind was to be vested in the new department?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not think Mr. Glassco was making reference to purchases for the armed services. He had reference to purchases now made, I think, by other departments of government. It is this particular recommendation, to which I made reference some time ago, that we are now examining to determine the extent to which it can be implemented by extending the range of activities by the Department of Defence Production.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Does the minister not feel there would be an opportunity for substantial savings if there were a purchasing agency to look after the needs of the armed services so that there would not be overlapping? There have been cases of the army having a thousand years supply of underwear, and so on. Could not waste of this kind be avoided?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Having just been admonished for proceeding, it is said, with too much haste and an ill conceived bill, it would be inappropriate for me to express an opinion on a subject which is now under study. I hope the hon. member is not asking me to prejudge the conclusion of the people who now have this under consideration.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The point is, we have recommendations before parliament by a royal commission which spent over $2 million, and now we are setting up a new department and vesting in it the powers of the old Department of Defence Production. I think those recommendations included the suggestion that this department and the minister should be a central purchasing agency for the armed services. Now it seems to me that to amalgamate these two departments and leave out the purchasing agency concept would be to ignore the recommendations which have been made to save the taxpayers of Canada some money.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not think any step is now being taken which will in any way inhibit the full implementation of the recommendation of the Glassco commission.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I take it there will be one minister for the two departments and perhaps two or more deputy ministers. While we may not be inhibiting action to set up a central agency, I suggest we are now dealing with a department which is recommended as a purchasing agency, and that this is an appropriate time for the committee to have
28, 1963	1709
Establishment of Industry Department the government's thinking on the subject. It is also the proper time, I would think, for us to have some indication of positive and immediate steps which the government intends to take with regard to saving some money on the purchasing of material for the armed forces. The minister has said the government is going ahead with some of the recommendations made by this royal commission. At the same time, some of the functions of the Department of Defence Production are being watered down and, I am disappointed to learn, one of the most important recommendations of the royal commission is not being followed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would point out to the hon. member that what is under discussion here is the formation of a new department of industry. The department of industry will not have responsibility for the procurement of goods and services for the three armed forces. That is quite clear according to the terms of the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But it is the responsibility of the minister of the department.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is entirely correct, but if a distinction could be made I should be speaking here in my capacity as minister of industry and in relation to the department of industry and we should not, 1 hope, lead to confusion by considering at this time possible amendments to the Defence Production Act, because it is conceivable that to carry out the suggestions of Mr. Glassco the Defence Production Act would require amendment. That is not, at the moment, under consideration. I hope we will not confuse things by mixing up future considerations with the provisions of the bill which is now before us.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This brings me to the crux of the matter. I believe the functions now performed by the Department of Trade and Commerce have far more in common with the department of industry. Then on the other side of the picture the Department of Defence Production as constituted now has responsibilties far more in common with the recommendation of the setting up of a central purchasing agency for the armed services, and perhaps other departments. Therefore what in effect we are doing is lining up departments in the wrong areas.
At the resolution stage I said we would be doing Canada a better service by incorporating the Department of Trade and Commerce in an expanded department of industry, calling it a department of trade and industry, rather than bringing the Department of Defence Production into the department of industry. It seems to me that trade
1710	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Establishment of Industry Department and industry go together and have far more in common than either has with defence production. I am rather disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the attitude seems to be to bypass some of the best recommendations of the Glassco commission for the time being, and perhaps for a long time. I do not like to be repetitious but it seems to me that defence production and a central purchasing agency is a natural combination. On the other hand, I think industry and trade also naturally go together. I am disappoined that we are now going to separate these departments, because the way they are to be set up now will mean that they have half as much in common as they would have under the suggestion I have made.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just before the clause carries, Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question simply for clarification. As I understand it, the minister will have a deputy minister of defence production, a deputy minister of trade and a commissioner for area development all reporting directly to him?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There will be a deputy minister of industry rather than a deputy minister of trade.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I meant industry, I beg your pardon.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: And a commissioner of the area development agency; that is correct.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And all three will be reporting directly to him?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is correct.


Edward Nasserden: Would the minister say whether there is any significance arising out of the fact that under clause 8 of the bill the duties of the minister-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member is referring to clause 8 so may we wait until we reach it. We are only on clause 1 at the moment.


Edward Nasserden: Then I have another question I want to ask. The minister said that the government wanted a closer connection between the Department of Defence Production and the new department of industry. Does that indicate that there will be a change of accent to promote a greater armaments program in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Could the minister tell us how many, if any, of the crown corporations will be responsible to this new department?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The new department will have no crown corporations responsible to it at all. The whole scheme of the department is laid

out in the bill; as the hon. member will see there are no crown corporations involved here.


Mr. Lambert:: In any event, though, the minister will be responsible to parliament for a number of crown corporations, I take it, those for which he now reports in his capacity of Minister of Defence Production?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is correct.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I am not concerned at the moment with the discussion which has gone on about the relative merits of establishing this department and how it will overlap with the Department of Trade and Commerce or the Department of Defence Production, but I should like some clarification of what the government has in mind as to the scope and ambit of this department with reference to its title and to what might be considered restrictions in the terms of the bill. The bill is respecting the department of industry; but in clauses 6 and 7 where the duties and powers of the department and minister are generally set forth reference is made only to manufacturing industries. I have checked the definition clause of the bill and there is no definition of a manufacturing industry. From time to time in this chamber we have considerable discussion about primary industry, secondary manufacturing industry, and so on. I wonder whether the minister could give us the thinking of the government in regard to what is the definition of a manufacturing industry. When does an industry become a manufacturer?
Perhaps I should just indicate what I have in mind by using an example, say in the mining industry. If a man is taking out raw ore and shipping it, is he manufacturing it? On the other hand, if he has a concentrator which manufactures the raw ore into a concentrate, does he then become a manufacturer, and would his manufactures come within the scope and the interests of this department, and whatever it is the department is attempting to do? Quite frankly, I might say while on my feet that I do not consider the introduction of this bill or its passage through the house to be quite of the earth-shattering importance that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, for example, appeared to consider it to be. However, I should appreciate this clarification at this stage from the minister.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have no definition of manufacturing industry, but I will undertake to get it if the hon. member will accept it a little later on. Generally speaking, manufacturing industry in Canada as contemplated here relates to those industries or industrial operations which process raw material. In

this sense it would not include, as has just been pointed out, the extraction industries which merely remove ore or some similar product and, without a fairly intensive degree of processing, dispose of it. That in itself does not make it a manufacturing industry. If, however, the raw material is reasonably processed within its industrial function, then it would constitute a manufacturing industry.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If I might bring into the discussion another industry of considerable importance, not only in the province from which I come but also other parts of Canada, where does the minister envisage the line will be drawn between manufacturing and extraction in the forest products industry, and why is it envisaged that this department should be set up so that it would not be concerned with what you might call primary extraction of natural resources, but only with industry when it reaches the stage when the resources are processed beyond that point?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think perhaps the simple answer would be that there already exists in the federal government a number of departments whose concern is either the raw material itself or the extractive process. In the case of forest products there is the Department of Forestry which is concerned with the production of the raw materials of the forest products industry. It is less concerned with the intensive processing of these products beyond the more or less elementary stage, and it is in this secondary stage or what is known as secondary industry that the concern and interest of the department of industry will arise and the interest of the Department of Forestry will stop. The same is perhaps true of the Department of Agriculture whose concern is with the raw materials of food rather than with the whole of their processing.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have one further question that may be of some interest to the hon. member sitting next to the minister. Let us take the question of fish. If fish is dry salted is it going to come within the purview of the department of industry-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Atlantic development board.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -or if it is filleted and quick frozen for marketing, will it then come under the department of industry?


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I have been thinking about the reply of the minister to my question regarding clause 8 and I believe it would be very helpful if he could answer my question now. I am wondering whether there is any significance arising out of this clause that is not contained in the bill itself.
28, 1963	1711
Establishment of Industry Department


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There is no significance that is not contained in the bill.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Is it the intention of the government that public funds will be used to finance some of these industries whose problems the new department will be considering? Are you going to assist them in any way by public funds?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is a little hard to answer now. If we can ever get to it, clause 6 of the bill indicates the processes through which this new department has to go. It is following the process of study and analysis that one propounds solutions, some of which may cost money, although I would hope the bulk of them would not. Until you know what the problems are it is difficult to prescribe solutions and until you know what the solutions are you do not know whether it is going to cost any money.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Temporary appointments.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 5 carry?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, Mr. Chairman. This is not going to be carried for a little while. We have made remarkable progress in 30 seconds so I think we can take a deep breath before going further. I should like the minister to comment on clause 5, which gives the governor in council the power to appoint persons having special knowledge of any manufacturing industry, which raises a point, as we said a few minutes ago. These persons are to be paid such salaries and employed upon such other terms and conditions as the governor in council sees fit, including payment of a share of premiums on their insurance. I presume that means they will come from industries where they have pension schemes of their own which have to be protected. In addition, under subclause 2 it is provided that no person appointed pursuant to subclause 1 shall continue to be so employed after December 31, 1964.
From the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre this afternoon, about the time it takes a department to settle down, it would appear to me that December 31, 1964, is going to be here in a relatively short time. I do not know just who the minister is going to have, and I think he might perhaps clear up my mind on this point; because I looked up the Civil Service Act when I went out and, although the section is somewhat ambiguous, this is the first experiment under that section. Perhaps the minister would have been in a safer position if he had
1712	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department allowed the standard clause to be put back in. In any event, apparently he is depending on that; but I think he should comment for a moment or two on clause 5, and then there are some questions I want to ask.


Mr, Drury:: The purpose of this clause is to make provision, where necessary, for the governor in council to engage on a temporary basis ending on December 31, 1964, persons having knowledge and experience of industrial operations in Canada to assist in getting the work of the department started. The termination date provided, December 31, 1964, is included for the purpose of ensuring that beyond that date the department will not be staffed by governor in council appointees but will be staffed, as is any other department and as indeed any other government department should be, on a continuing basis by persons who enter the government service through the normal competitive civil service examinations. This arrangement will provide an opportunity to secure people in the early stages to provide the organizing nucleus for the department to enable it to get started.


George Clyde Nowlan: Only on a temporary basis?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, that is clear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: To follow that up, I wonder whether the minister could visualize for us how he sees this development coming about, how he looks upon the temporary employees, what type of advice he is looking for from them and how many there may be. Has he any ideas as to what types of industry they might come from? Are they going to be advisers from the economic field or are they going to be people who have had practical experience? I wonder if the minister would enlarge on that a little?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Manifestly whenever a particular type of experience required is available at the present time in the government service, use will be made of it. In so far as people are needed within the new department with the qualities, knowledges and skills that are required for the special job, they will be sought first within the civil service; and only in the event that they are not now in it, and the positions cannot be filled by transfers will we go outside.
It would be expected that there would be a division within the new department having to do with the steel industry. If we are unable to find within the government service someone with the necessary skill and knowledge concerning the steel industry in Canada we will then look to the steel industry for someone with the qualities needed who can


bring to bear immediately an already acquired knowledge of the particular industry with which we are concerned.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the minister why he needs clause 5, in the light of the first two lines of clause 15? There may be some reason, but it struck me as odd.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In the light of clause 15?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, clause 15 where it says that the governor in council may appoint advisers.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Quite frankly, as I understand the purpose of clause 15 it looks to the appointment of advisers and advisory committees that would at no time be an integral part of the department; and these would be expected to continue as long as their services were required. Clause 5, however, has specific reference to individuals who will assist in the early organization of the department. They will form part of it temporarily but it was desired to put a limitation on the time during which they could serve so as to bring an end to this temporary state of affairs.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 5 stands.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.



BANKRUPTCY ACT


David Orlikow: the second reading of Bill No. C-12, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (wage earners' assignments).
He said: This bill which I am proposing today, Mr. Speaker, is the same bill as the one I moved during the last session. In my opinion, the bill deals with the same general principle as all the other bills which have been introduced by members of the house dealing with the general question of interest rates. I had hoped that this bill, along with the other bills, would have been referred to the committee on banking for its consideration. However, since that has not been agreed to, I propose to discuss the subject matter today.
The necessity for this bill arises basically because the people of Canada simply do not

Know how much it costs to borrow money. They could find out very easily how much it would cost to buy a car or a television set, but clearly the ordinary person does not know how much money costs him. The price of money is never expressed in language that 99 per cent of the public could possibly understand. It is easy to borrow money for a dollar down and a dollar a week or so much per month, but finding out what the real annual interest rate is is about as difficult as pulling teeth.
It is quite common, for instance, for working people to borrow $8 when they go to work on Monday morning on the promise that they will pay back $10 on Friday when they get paid. There are many people who do this who have no idea of the agreement which has been made. In fact, the rate of interest on this transaction would be about 1,825 per cent a year.
Because it is easy to borrow money-


Mr. MacNaughl:: May I interrupt the hon. member? Is he discussing Bill No. C-10 or Bill No. C-12?


David Orlikow: I am discussing Bill No. C-12, Mr. Speaker. The reason I am talking about interest rates is my feeling that people get in over their heads partly because they do not know what the interest rates are. I will come to the essential principles of Bill No. C-12 before I conclude my remarks. It is so easy to borrow money because we have all become accustomed to trying to live to the standard of our neighbours. It is practically a sin not to own a car, not to have a television set, not to have a washing machine and dryer, and not to own one's own house. More and more, people are borrowing money or buying merchandise on time. Most reputable retailers encourage instalment buying. Most proper finance companies practically roll out the red carpeting for people who come in to use their services or borrow money. Of course, they all hide the exorbitant rate of interest which they charge.
If anyone doubts that, all he has to do is look at the statement made by the Canadian retail federation to the royal commission on banking and finance, which spells out their stand on what we ought to do about interest rates. They refer to the proposals which have been made in this house and in other chambers to the effect that the actual interest rate should be spelled out. They say that this kind of proposal is mischievous nonsense; that such knowledge would be misleading, confusing, incorrect and unworkable. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the only thing unworkable about it would be that the retailers might sell a little less merchandise. I had never heard such a completely selfish attitude on the part of any group in this society, until I heard that.
Bankruptcy Act
I do not question the need for consumer credit because such credit has helped us raise our standard of living, provide material comforts for many people. It has increased production and it has helped to create jobs. However, we have had too many instances of tremendous hardship as a result of the excessive use of credit. These hardships have been created, in part at least, as a result of lack of knowledge of the interest rate charged and partly by pressure to conform with our neighbours. An interesting memorandum was prepared recently by the federation of national trade unions. They give a concrete example of the kind of difficulty into which people get. I want to read from the memorandum, Mr. Speaker.
Here is a case of a union member who bought $1,900 worth of merchandise on terms. The merchant boosted his price by from 40 per cent to 50 per cent in order to give a supposed exchange allowance and to legalize the deal. The result was an interest rate not of 27 per cent, but of at least 60 per cent. This union member has been in debt to the same company for 12 years, yet he really owns nothing because the company has a bond on all the furniture. This man purchased a washer and dryer, and then fell victim to a thorough exploitation on the system of exchanging. The real value of the two pieces of merchandise he bought was $600, but because a sewing machine was exchanged on the deal he was charged $858. He was allowed $383 as a credit on the sewing machine, and the actual allowance on the sewing machine was really $125. It had been purchased for $464, had only been used for six months, and the company resold it for $400. This left a profit on the deal to the company of $275, plus the profit on the financing, plus the profit on the sale of the washer and dryer.
The same man purchased a bedroom set from the company. The regular retail price of the bedroom set was $385, which was double the wholesale price. However, it was invoiced to the man at $579, which leaves a surcharge of $194 over the regular price. Then, $200 was allowed on a used bedroom set which, according to information supplied to the man, was later resold for at least $100. The balance owing, after the deduction of the allowance, was $397.95. This amount, financed at a basic rate of 27 per cent, gives an interest income of $107, plus $100 exploitation in the exchange deal, which makes a hidden interest rate of about 60 per cent.
Moreover, the law states that upon any refinancement, the merchant retains his bond on all merchandise covered by previous contracts. So, we have here the case of a family which had been refinancing for 12 years.

Bankruptcy Act
There have been six refinancements paid with the well known penalty of approximately 30 per cent, and that is why, after 12 years, they still owe the company $3,148.25; and I may say this man has a salary of $60 a week.
I have spoken about how easy it is to get credit. According to the Bank of Canada, loans to consumers went up by $300 million from 1957 to 1960. The difficulties arise not in the borrowing of the money but after a person has borrowed money or purchased goods. This is when his difficulties begin.
Often the trouble comes not from the retailer, who is usually friendly, but from some finance company to which the retailer has sold the paper, as it is called in the trade. How difficult it can be for a person is illustrated in a news report which appeared in the Montreal Star on Wednesday June 19 last. I shall only quote a portion of it. The heading of the report reads, "Collection Agency to Pay Damages." It states:
A Superior Court judge yesterday labelled as reprehensible and illegal the action of a collection agency and a bailiff in breaking down the door of a supposed debtor and seizing his furniture.
Further on it states:
The judge said that on one occasion two men forced their way into the house in St. Michel and evaluated the furniture and that on another occasion, when the man and wife attempted to barricade themselves to protect their property, their door was broken down with an axe and the furniture seized.
This is an extreme case; but there are thousands of cases where people have difficulties with threatening letters, telephone calls, personal calls at their door at all times of the day and night, garnishee orders and lost jobs. These troubles are common to people finding themselves in the position of having to buy on credit, and by that time people are so far in debt that they cannot pay their bills even if they wished.
The bill in my name would add a new clause to the Bankruptcy Act. It would permit the insolvent wage earner to make an assignment to a trustee appointed by the courts. The wage earner would submit his wages to the trustee, who would make regular payments, on the order that the wage earner could afford, to the creditors. Where the contract signed by the wage earner is unconscionable, then the courts could exempt the wage earner from payment of excessive interest charges. The courts could also enforce obedience to the arrangements worked out by the trustee, and would have power to discharge the wage earner when he has fulfilled his obligations.
Bills similar to this have been enacted in the United States where they have helped
[Mr. Orlikow.l
thousands of people. The bill would help not only the wage earner but the legitimate creditor. It would help the wage earner by taking inordinate pressure off him and permitting orderly payment of his debts. It would also help the legitimate creditor because he would be more likely to get his money.
I had hoped this bill would be submitted along with other bills to the committee on banking and commerce, but since that has not been agreed upon, I hope hon. members will discuss the basic principles involved, will realize the importance of this subject, have a full sense of the tremendous hardship experienced by many people, and that they will not talk the bill to death so that it will die on the order paper at six o'clock.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I think that Bill C-12 just introduced by the hon. member has some justification, because it is based upon quite acceptable motives.
However, while the bill's mover was speaking, I was wondering whether he was referring to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Interest Act, or Bill C-12, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
The bill proposed by the hon. member raises rather serious problems for a member from the province of Quebec.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I notice that, to my way of thinking, Bill C-12 is interfering with something about which Quebec is extremely sensitive, especially these days where new constitutional problems have arisen. In my opinion Bill C-12 intervenes in a field where Quebec has already legislated. If the federal government was in a position to intervene in this provincial matter through a bankruptcy act, I feel it is because the constitution enabled the central government to intervene with regard to commercial matters.
However, Bill No. C-12 aims at protecting the employees' rights and not the merchants'.
Mr. Speaker, I consider it an interference in the civil law of the province of Quebec and I feel it would be unconstitutional to adopt Bill No. C-12, because it intervenes in the field of civil law. I maintain that the civil law of the province of Quebec must be jealously guarded by that province, as stipulated in the constitution.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that too often unlucky wage earners have assumed obligations for years to come and are obliged today to pay back interest or debts for years before they can free themselves. I agree that

something should be done for those people, but the provinces can do it, and the province of Quebec has taken steps in that field.
We have, in the province of Quebec, what is called the Lacombe act, which has been incorporated in the civil code to cover such cases. That legislation authorizes, for instance, a debt-ridden wage earner who cannot meet his liabilities, to go to the clerk's office at the magistrate's court and make a declaration to the effect that he is unable to pay his debts.
At that time, he gives to the clerk the list of his creditors who are then advised by the clerk himself; and, each week, according to the provisions of the Lacombe act, the debtor who is unable to meet his liabilities is obliged to pay a certain amount according to his means, which amount is set by law; it is not left to the discretion of a judge, but is determined by law. A married wage earner may take $24 off his pay for himself, and has to pay 30 per cent on the balance. A married wage earner who makes $84 a week keeps $24; while having to pay 30 per cent on the remaining $60 to the clerk of the magistrate's court, that is $18. The difference between $84 and $18 which represents his own salary, he uses to meet his current obligations, and not his past liabilities.
If the individual is unmarried and earns $84 a week, the clerk deducts $12, while keeping $21.60 of the balance of $72 to pay the creditors.
Every third month, the clerk distributes to the creditors the accumulated money in proportion to the amount of the claim they have against this hapless debtor.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this act, in the province of Quebec, meets the objects of Bill C-12 moved by the hon. member. A close study of the bill shows that there are some points which, in my opinion, even though they were to be implemented would not be practical in the province of Quebec.
I understand that Bill No. C-12 has very commendable objects, but for instance, if we take subclause 2 of clause 26(b) which reads as follows:
The trustee may apply to the court for relief in respect of any executory contract; and, after hearing upon notice, when the court finds that, having regard to the risk and to all the circumstances, the financial obligations under the contract upon the wage earner are excessive or that the obligations generally are harsh and unconscionable,
The clause also stipulates that the court may intervene. Now, in accordance with the civil code of the province of Quebec, both
Bankruptcy Act
criterias mentioned in subclause 2 of clause 26(b) cannot apply, and I mean the risk and other circumstances.
According to the civil code of the province of Quebec, a judge cannot intervene in a contract unless he can ascertain that excessive harshness has been suffered by the debtor. The judge can intervene only when the party is a person under age and this is confirmed in section 1,001 of the civil code of the province of Quebec.
In the province of Quebec, according to French law, the judge may intervene in a contract only under definite conditions, such as an error in the essence of the contract, either by fraudulent practices, violence or fear.
Mr. Speaker, I think that subclause 2 of clause 26(b) could not be enacted in the province of Quebec, because it does not meet the spirit of the law. In that province, a contract is either legal or illegal. If it is legal, it is entirely so, and the judge cannot modify one clause or another. It is either good or bad. It is impossible to intervene, because, according to French civil law, a contract expresses the will of both parties in writing; or, if it is a commercial agreement, it must be expressed so as to give proof thereof. Therefore, sub-clause 2 of clause 26(b) could not in practice apply to the province of Quebec. As I mentioned earlier today, this would be completely outside the usual framework of law administration.
Now, there is a point I would like to raise. Under clause 26(b), subclause 1, the hon. member suggests that a trustee may be a responsible person without necessarily being an authorized trustee. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with it because it is already difficult enough to find competent trustees to administer the assets of a bankrupt. If anybody who has not the least idea of the law were asked to administer the assets and property of a bankrupt, we would have chaos and would be unable to find any solution. This would render the administration of the law still more complicated than it is now.
Mr. Speaker, while we are discussing the Bankruptcy Act, I must say that I am opposed to the concept of the mover of the bill which asks people-practically anybody- to look after the Bankruptcy Act. I think, Mr. Speaker, that too many trustees do not know the act and especially in the province of Quebec where the problem is even more difficult because this act has a British background. I mean it is an English act proceeding from English philosophy. We, in the

Bankruptcy Act
province of Quebec, have the French civil code and it is extremely difficult, Mr. Speaker, to reconcile in practice the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act with the practice and the civil code of the province of Quebec because the two acts proceed from completely different philosophies.
Mr. Speaker, instead of entrusting the implementation of the Bankruptcy Act to people even less qualified, I suggest that we should find more qualified people who know the act better than those who carry it out at the present time and they are numerous among the trustees. I think that the director of the bankruptcy division should enforce some kind of regulations to compel people to know our legislation a little better because in the province of Quebec, the conflict between those two acts is extreme. Furthermore, it raises many problems which are very difficult for our courts to settle.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with the principle of the bill, that seeks to help people in financial difficulties. But I object to this bill being passed by the house because once again it interferes, especially in the province of Quebec, with the civil code which we want to preserve preciously in the province of Quebec.
Many provisions in this bill are in direct contradiction with the spirit of our legislation. I say that this is an area where the federal government must intervene with the utmost caution, because the Bankruptcy Act is applicable in the case of businessmen. Under Bill C-12, we are infringing upon the civil code of the province of Quebec, and I am convinced that we should not go forward with it because we must respect it as provided by the Canadian constitution and the B.N.A. Act, that is that the civil law comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the remarks of the sponsor of Bill C-12, as well as the comments just made on the subject.
I also feel bound to express a certain fear, like my friend, about the possible infringement of this bill on our provincial legislation.
On the other hand, as our friend pointed out with some alarm, we actually have a federal Bankruptcy Act which applies in the province of Quebec and the implementation of the provisions of this new bill would not succeed in solving our constitutional problems. But at this point, it is still not the main cause for concern. I would rather be in favour of referring the bill to a committee that would settle the constitutional issue.

It is true that in the province of Quebec we have the Lacombe act, but it is a dreadful act for the poor debtor. The Lacombe act favours the bad guy, the large creditor who tempts the customer with things which are above the latter's financial means, makes him sign a finance contract which the purchaser cannot afford-as the mover of the bill pointed out-and afterwards grabs the debtor by the throat. It is really the Lacombe act which takes debtors by the throat since, before they are through, they have to pay back two and even three times the amount they owe. The legal fees double and triple the amount of the debt.
I am in favour of the principle of the bill, but that does not mean that we should adopt it since the point in question is whether those finance contracts are legal or not, as someone said a while ago.
This is why I believe that the bill should not be carried in its present wording. But nevertheless, it was fitting to present it, if only to draw the attention of provincial authorities on the necessity of protecting debtors against those loan sharks, who well deserve such a name. In fact, they systematically take unfair advantage of the borrower who does not know how and to what extent he is committed, believing that he will be in a position to meet the weekly instalments of $2, $5 or $10, but unfortunately he is unable to do so.
Then he comes under the Lacombe act for five years, maybe ten. I do not think that is right. I think it would be unfair to force a person to pay a debt he incurred, perhaps through some misfortune, within a three-year period, as provided in the bill.
That is why I am opposed to the bill, but I congratulate the mover for submitting the idea. I do hope provincial governments will use it to ensure that there will be a greater amount of justice in finance enterprises. (Text):


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: While I realize that the sponsor of this bill is trying to arrive at some solution of the difficulties he has mentioned I feel that in presenting this measure in its present form he is creating more problems than the bill itself would solve.
We have heard him for two thirds of the time during which he spoke talk about unconscionable transactions. I do not think this bill is designed to deal with that subject. The hon. member is trying, in this proposed amendment to The Bankruptcy Act, to deal

with the situation of a person of small means who cannot afford to go bankrupt under the present regulations of the act, the man who cannot make an assignment because he cannot pay a trustee.
Hon. members who have spoken so far seem to think that the man who will be involved in these situations is the man who has run into some ogre of a department store or other concern which has led him down the garden path. I reject that entirely. Certainly, there are persons who get into trouble because they have entered into unconscionable transactions; but there are also many men and women who have got into financial difficulties out of sheer stupidity, carelessness or wanton spending. Let us not say they are all to be pitied. Account should be taken, too, of the honest traders with whom these people deal-the service station operator whose bills for tires and gasoline are not paid; the tailor from whom they buy suits or dresses; the doctor; the dentist.
As I said, I think this bill creates more problems than it solves. We know that some years ago in Manitoba there was a provincial act, unfortunately declared ultra vires, which made some progress in dealing with these problems. There was a parallel act in Ontario which also fell by the wayside because of the doubt which was cast on the act in Manitoba. It is one I have been interested in as far as Alberta is concerned, because I believe we have there a mechanism for reaching a solution, if we can make appropriate amendments to The Bankruptcy Act. Under these provisions the provincial authority would be empowered to name some public authority which might without a fee, make assignments on behalf of creditors. We have set up informally a debtors assistance board in Alberta to which a man might come and make a proposal for settling his affairs. Unfortunately, it sometimes happens that when he begins to pay out, one of the creditors hearing of the arrangement may say: This will take too long; this man is now earning some money so I will garnishee his wages. Well, we know what happens in most instances when this is done. The employer simply says: We cannot be bothered with this; you had better leave our employ. Thus the greedy creditor has eliminated any source of relief for the remaining creditors.
I have worked closely with this debtors assistance board. We have seen people there who really should not have gone bankrupt. They have needed help to sort out their debts
Bankruptcy Act
-someone who would bring the creditors together in an informal way and help them to hammer out a proposal whereby, voluntarily, they would pay a certain sum on a regular basis, allowing the creditors to get a reasonable share while enabling the debtors to live. That is what we have aimed at.
I do not think this amendment to the Bankruptcy Act will achieve that purpose. As a previous speaker has indicated, to have some local official or court set aside obligations, or to rank secured obligations, will fly in the face of other legislation both provincial and federal. I would say it would be unconstitutional and ultra vires. We know numbers of people who are in trouble financially and who are purchasing homes with the assistance of direct loans from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. How on earth could we under this legislation simply authorize a court to set aside the terms of the mortgage? It would make nonsense of provincial legislation as well as of property and of civil rights, especially where our mortgage regulations are governed, as they are in Alberta, by provincial law.
I do not share the constitutional worries of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) or of the hon. member for St. Maurice-La-fleehe (Mr. Chretien), that for some reason or other the national bankruptcy law is an intrusion on provincial jurisdiction and is designed for commercial operations only. I have never known that the Bankruptcy Act was so limited. A man may be a wage earner or self-employed; he can still qualify for the protection afforded by the Bankruptcy Act. It is said that bankruptcy legislation constitutes an intrusion into provincial civil law, that there is a different mentality in the province of Quebec with respect to civil law. Is there to be a different criminal law for that province? Is there a different mentality in the province in that respect, and should there be a different system of administration of justice? I am afraid I cannot share that opinion. If we have a bankruptcy law it should apply from one end of the country to the other. But I do feel that trying to make an amendment to the bankruptcy law, as this bill seeks to do, is not a practical course of conduct. The result of this proposed legislation would be to play ducks and drakes with provincial laws enacted under appropriate provincial jurisdiction, and to me that is quite wrong.
I would prefer to have the hon. member spend more time endeavouring to show how wage earners or persons of limited means could be assisted by way of a wage earner's

Bankruptcy Act
assignment. I think some parts of the bill are quite workable, but in the form proposed I think it would create far more problems than it would solve. The bill says that a trustee shall be paid 5 per cent of the sums to be handled by him. I think it would be far better however if an appropriate amendment were made to the Bankruptcy Act whereby provincial authorities could set up a quasi public body which would handle the administration of the small debtors' debts. This would do everyone a service, not only the debtor but also the creditor, who has rights too.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, when the proposer of this bill first rose to his feet he raised some question in this house as to why the bill would not be referred, as would others dealing with the control of consumer credit, to the proposed joint committee of this house and the Senate at such time as the committee is established to deal with this subject. In opening my remarks this afternoon I should like to point out, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has already said, that in essence this bill achieves two separate objectives. First, it provides an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act to carry into federal law the former provisions of a number of western statutes which made provision for the orderly payment of debts, and also attempts to carry into federal law, under the guise of bankruptcy, the provisions of what was in Ontario up until last year the unconscionable transactions relief act.
In my view the reason this bill should not be referred to the joint committee on consumer credit, when this committee is established, is that the terms of reference of that committee would not provide for an appropriate discussion of bankruptcy legislation. Hon. members will perhaps recall that a bill dealing with substantially the same subject matter was passed in the other place last session and introduced into this house, receiving first reading on January 21, 1963. There is at the present time a bill substantially in the form of that bill under the aegis of the government now before the other place. While agreeing generally with the comments of the hon. gentleman with regard to the desirability of setting up some procedure to provide for the orderly payment of debts, my position this afternoon would be that I think that that legislation, when it comes forward, would be a much more desirable means of achieving this end, and I would say that further consideration of this bill should be deferred until this legislation can be brought forward.
[Mr. Lambert.)
In view of the comments which have been made by some hon. gentlemen this afternoon with regard to the constitutionality of the provisions of this bill, I think it might be of some assistance briefly to pursue the legislative pedigree of this proposed legislation. A Manitoba statute called the orderly payment of the debts act was first introduced into that province by the Manitoba legislature in 1932. This statute apparently was a success and commended itself to the legislature of the native province of the hon. member for Edmonton West, which in 1959 enacted a statute substantially in the same form. Some question was raised at that time before the statute had been proclaimed, as to the constitutionality of its provisions, and a reference was made by the lieutenant governor in council of that province, first to the appellate division of the supreme court of Alberta, and then to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ultimately determined that that form of statute was substantially a matter in pith and substance concerning bankruptcy and insolvency, a subject matter which is conferred on the federal government by section 91 of the British North America Act. It was following that adverse decision with regard to the Alberta legislation, which of course provided a declaratory statement with respect to the constitutionality of the Manitoba legislation, that the attorneys general of those two provinces, as I understand it, requested action be taken by the federal government. The previous government took steps to prepare a bill, which was Bill No. S-2 in the last session and is Bill No. S-2 in this session.
There was a second motivation behind the federal government's action at that time. Hon. members will perhaps be familiar with the provisions of the present Bankruptcy Act, which were first introduced in 1949, regarding summary administration of estates. Those provisions provided what was felt to be a simpler and less expensive course of action for dealing with bankrupt estates, where the debtor's total assets were not in excess of $500. The summary administration provisions of the Bankruptcy Act have, in the judgment of most persons knowledgeable in this field, proven to be unsatisfactory, and therefore it was proposed that immediate action should be taken by way of this bill not only to enact a procedure for the orderly payment of debts but also to dispose of the unsatisfactory summary administration proceedings.
I should like at this point to make reference in detail to two objections I have to the hon. member's bill. I refer to the terms of section 26b (1), in which we learn that the

wage earner in a particular case is to commence proceedings by making an assignment. I would point out to all hon. members that the consequence of that under the existing terms of the Bankruptcy Act is that the wage earner will have committed an act of bankruptcy. It is my understanding that the objective of the provincial legislation and the objective of the whole legislative scheme is that an honest, responsible wage earner should be entitled by this procedure, by means of a consolidation order, to avoid the stigma of bankruptcy. Yet the hon. member, under the terms of his bill, makes it mandatory that the debtor should take the bankruptcy proceedings.
Further difficulties arise from this. As a result of committing an act of bankruptcy, what effect does the action of filing an assignment have on the other provisions of the Bankruptcy Act? In particular, what if the debtor falls behind in his payments? What if further and other capital assets, as opposed to earnings, of the debtor are later discovered? How are they to be applied within the terms of the Bankruptcy Act, and how are they to be applied to the debt? Unfortunately, Bill No. C-12 is silent on all these points. The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) has already pointed out the disadvantage of proceeding by way of appointment of a trustee, and not even a licensed trustee at that, in order to administer the provisions.
One of the difficulties of the current summary administration provisions of the Bankruptcy Act has been not only the difficulty of securing a reliable trustee, but substantial evidence has been presented of a number of abuses in respect of these summary administration provisions. Here the hon. member would not only not require the basic requirement of licensing so as to establish a person's financial responsibility and professional ability, but he would permit the assignment to be made to a person who had not even sustained those preliminary standards. This I feel would be a defect in the proceeding. This is one of the provisions with regard to which I think the bill before the Senate involving the terms of the Manitoba and Alberta statutes is superior to this particular piece of legislation. Under those provisions no trustee or person acting in the role of trustee is required. Rather, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has pointed out, an officer of the county or district court in the appropriate province is the person to whom the assignment is made. He is the person who is responsible for carrying out the administration of the consolidation order.
The hon. member has devoted most of his time in making his remarks on this subject
Bankruptcy Act
to the provisions of clause 26b (2) which, as I have already pointed out, reincorporates substantially the terms of the unconscionable transactions relief act of Ontario which was declared ultra vires and void in the province of Ontario by the court of appeal of that province in late 1962. It would be inappropriate, I think, for hon. members to discuss the provisions of that particular statute in parliament at this time because the decision of the Ontario court of appeal is now under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and is awaiting hearing. It would be contrary to the rules of the house to do that.
With regard to the provisions concerning interest let me simply say that I feel it would be premature for action or even discussion on this subject not only in this house but in a committee of this house, as the hon. member has suggested. I also think it would be much more appropriate to deal with these particular procedures by way of a separate bill, if the hon. member felt it was necessary, so that the bill could be referred to the committee on consumer credit.
I should like to point out that one of the motives of the government in introducing Bill No. S-2 was to rectify defects in the summary administration provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, and those defects would not be overcome by this particular bill. Second, I feel that the legislation to come forward will probably set out the procedure to be followed by parties in connection with such a consolidation order, and their various rights at that stage, more clearly than the hon. member has. Third, I feel, as I have already pointed out, that his provisions with regard to unconscionable transactions are premature at this time, in view of the fact that their subject matter is now before the Supreme Court of Canada on an appeal.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise for a minute or two to express my support for the principle and purpose of this bill. I am sure the hon. member has been moved to introduce it because of his knowledge of injustices suffered by many individuals. I must explain that I am not capable of dealing with the intricacies of the law: I am not a lawyer. I have had to work hard all my life for my living, but I have had an interest in this subject for many years. Quite a number of my constituents, working people and businessmen, have been done out of considerable sums of money by nothing more nor less than damned crooks who have fled to the United States after they have fleeced good Canadians. More than that, to my knowledge the federal and provincial governments have lost thousands of dollars in taxation in my riding on that account, and nothing can be done about it.

Bankruptcy Act
I could give endless illustrations, and they have made me come to the conclusion that we need a complete overhaul of the Bankruptcy Act. I think reference of this bill to the appropriate committee will give the committee an opportunity to call witnesses, hear evidence, study this situation and make a report to the house.
I find that the majority of people are completely ignorant as to their rights under the Bankruptcy Act. I think the act and the procedures require simplifying and in my opinion there should be more information with respect to the law and the regulations available to ordinary persons, in language they can understand. I can think of numerous instances of good, honest people losing considerable sums of money, and on some occasions suffering to quite an extent, because of their ignorance of the present law and their failure even to take advantage of certain provisions of it.
I know this is a complex question, Mr. Speaker. As I have said, I am not capable of going into the finer points of the legislation, but I do feel that if the bill is referred to the appropriate committee this will provide an opportunity for us to begin to break ground in the direction of necessary amendments to the Bankruptcy Act.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew Souih):: Mr. Speaker, the first thing that shocks me to some degree about this bill is, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has stated, its patent and blatant unconstitutionality. It is well known that we on this side of the house are very wary and careful, in any legislation that we support or pass, to guard provincial rights jealously.
(Translation):
We on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, are most sensitive to the feelings of the provinces and especially to the so sensitive feelings of a certain premier of a certain province.
(Text):
For this reason, if for no other, I think we on this side of the house could not possibly support the bill. I would point to one aspect of it which is of interest. That is the fact that in essence, if I judge rightly from the remarks of the hon. member who proposed the bill, it is essentially consumer legislation with which he is concerned. I think he suggested that the bill should go to the committee on consumer credit. The problems that are envisaged by the bill are problems that the insolvent gets into by reason of his capacity or status as a consumer, and I suggest that in this house and throughout the country we
[Mr. Herridge.l
have been very remiss in our consumer legislation in all its aspects, not merely on the credit side.
For instance, we put someone in jail because he plays bingo or operates a bingo game with the proceeds to go to charity; and yet the cola companies can put thousands of dollars under bottle caps, and that is legal. For this reason I suggest that our entire concept, that anything can be said or done under the sacred head of advertising, should be very carefully looked at.


An hon. Member:: You are absolutely right.


John James Greene: Thank you. I think we should take a look at our consumer legislation as a whole. Our people as consumers need greater protection than they are getting today not only on the credit side but with regard to their whole position as consumers, who are subjected to the continual pressure and heat of advertising and the wrongs and misconceptions of advertising that are foisted upon them as consumers. Therefore I hope that some day in the not too distant future we shall be able to look at this entire picture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being six o'clock I must advise the house that the hour for consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the house leader would like to put on Hansard the proposals for next week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the business for Tuesday and Wednesday was settled very amicably last night, of course, and I shall just reiterate that the government intends to propose that the house go into committee of supply. If there is an amendment it is understood that the vote on the amendment and any subamendment will take place at the end of Tuesday, so that Wednesday will be available for general grievances and the vote on Wednesday will be at a quarter to six. I just reiterate that so it will be available on the record. On Thursday, we propose to continue in committee with the department of industry bill, and to proceed with that bill to its conclusion. Then, we shall take the resolution concerning the Atlantic development board.
I might say that if the department of industry bill should be concluded before five o'clock it would not be possible to begin the resolution concerning the Atlantic bill until eight o'clock, and I would ask my colleague, the President of the Privy Council, to begin

the debate on the second reading of the economic council bill. I would hope we could arrange things so that both of these measures could be considered later that day and the following day. It may be that there will be some further clarification of the business
28, 1963	1721
Business of the House that I will wish to announce after a further conference with hon. gentlemen opposite which I hope to have early next week.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 2, 19G3