1963-07-11

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Edmund Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace) presented the second and third reports of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the third report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: On July 5 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the Acting Prime Minister for a legal opinion on the validity or otherwise of the appointment of certain persons to carry out special services in the Department of Finance.
I would like to table copies of a letter addressed on July 8, 1963, to the Clerk of the Privy Council by the deputy attorney general on this subject.



CUBA-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it the policy of this government to promote increased trade with Cuba, similar to the approach made by the former Conservative administration?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: In view of the fact that I have not had notice of this question I think I should perhaps answer it tomorrow.


Percy Verner Noble: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we should leave it there. The minister said he would take this as notice and answer the question tomorrow.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now that fish rationing has ended in Cuba, will the government make an effort to sell more fish products to that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in reply to an earlier question, I think I should deal with these questions of trade relations with Cuba all at once, and I will bear this question in mind when I am making my answer tomorrow.
(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MUNICIPAL LOAN FUND  RESOLUTION OF QUEBEC LEGISLATURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he has received the resolution unanimously carried by the Quebec legislature condemning the bill of federal assistance to municipalities, as well as an explanatory letter from Premier Lesage?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: To the best of my knowledge no such resolution has been received, but I will inquire when I go back to my office.
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: I wish to put a supplementary question Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware that Premier Lesage tabled this morning in the legislature a letter written to the Prime Minister of Canada in this connection?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I will look into the matter immediately.

(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question arising out of what was said a while ago. Has the Prime Minister taken into consideration the protests and remarks of the premier of Quebec in respect to that bill?
2068	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have taken those into consideration.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question that is an offshoot ot that put by the hon. member for Three Rivers. Can he be more definitive or definite with the house in terms of time with regard to bringing forward the municipal development and loan fund legislation, in view of the fact that many Ontario municipalities have staged winter projects in anticipation of it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we hope to proceed as quickly as possible with this piece of legislation which is on the order paper. How soon that will be, will depend on the progress made with the legislation now before the house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that any developments that may have taken place in Quebec will have no bearing at all upon the intention to proceed in this house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the provinces have an interest in this matter. They may be discussing it themselves at their conference in Halifax in August, but we have put the legislation on the order paper with the intention of proceeding with it.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can we be informed whether it will be proceeded with before the meeting of the provinces in August?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That will depend on the progress made with other legislation before the house, including the budget resolutions.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether any letters of acceptance or protest regarding this bill have been received from provinces other than the province of Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the only communication received from the provinces has been from the province of Quebec, but I should like to check on that before I give a definitive answer in regard to this particular piece of legislation. I will be glad to go into the matter tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's assertion that proceeding with this legislation depends upon the progress with regard to other legislation, may I ask if it would be appropriate for this matter to be discussed by


the representatives of all four parties when we are discussing the legislation to be proceeded with by the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it would be perfectly proper to discuss that in connection with the informal discussions that take place about house business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the suggestion made by the Prime Minister that proceeding with the municipal loan fund legislation depends on the arranging of the business of the house, will the Secretary of State call another meeting of the representatives of the four parties so that we might discuss this matter which, as he knows, we have not yet done?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman intends to refer to the subjects that have been discussed in our private meetings; therefore I will not contradict him. But I would hope it might be possible at 5.30 this afternoon-and it will save me a little trouble if they take this as notice-for the hon. gentlemen who usually consult with me to consult with me about the business of the house for the next few days, but I believe the consultation would be on a somewhat wider basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it quite clear that I agree with the Secretary of State that what goes on in these meetings should not be disclosed. But I think he would agree with me that the impression should not have been left by the Prime Minister that it was because of our inability to arrange for this legislation that it has not been proceeded with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. gentleman has seen fit to rise on a question of privilege I would say that I think the impression he thinks the Prime Minister created is entirely in his own mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The impression I got from what the Prime Minister said was that we had laid down a certain program of government business, as I think is incontestably the right of the government, and certain things that we thought ought to be given priority, and that when those things were disposed of there would be an opportunity to go on with the other items on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry That, I think, is a correct, factual and objective interpretation of what the Prime Minister said; and it is always wiser to take the words rather than someone else's impression on what the words mean.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, does the Secretary of State not think it would be more advantageous to decide what these items are and state them to the house rather than negotiate on them, so that all hon. members would be familiar with the terms of the legislation to be presented and so a date for the recess could be arranged without this negotiation, where new things can be added and new negotiations can be undertaken?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the remarkable co-operation given at all times by the hon. gentleman leads me to believe that anything he would concur in would speed up the business of the house.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a debate.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council? Can the minister tell the house why Mr. Claude Morin, deputy minister of federal-provincial affairs in Quebec, came to Ottawa recently?



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the rules of the house often afford us the opportunity to criticize the government, but seldom to congratulate it, I shall take the liberty to do so in compliance with parliamentary practice.
Would the Prime Minister allow me to congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) on the able manner in which he conducted the preliminary work for the world exhibition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public
Works, who is responsible for the world fair. Does the federal government intend to provide financial assistance to the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec concerning the construction of access roads, such as bridges and roadways, for the world fair?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, an agreement has been signed by the city of Montreal, the province of Quebec and the federal government, and the obligations of all three parties are clearly set out therein. There is no question of changing that agreement.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received a letter from the provincial minister of highways requesting a financial contribution from the federal government?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: My
question is one for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is based on discussions I have had with intelligent members of the House of Commons and some of the brightest minds of the press gallery. Can the minister assure the house that the clauses of the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia with respect to the Columbia river treaty are so clearly and properly drawn that there would be no possibility of misunderstanding their meaning in the days ahead?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I can think of no better compliment to the hon. gentleman than to recognize his own appreciation of the value of precision in language and the value of lucidity in expression, I am sure the hon. gentleman recognizes these qualities in the document I had the honour of tabling yesterday.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which has to do with the lucidity which he attributes to the document which he tabled yesterday. I am wondering whether the Secretary of
2070	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry State for External Affairs considers an example of that lucidity to be the latter part of subsection (j) of section 3 of the agreement, which is to be found in appendix "A" at page 2059 of yesterday's Hansard. This subsection uses these words:
-and not do so far as it is constitutionally capable prevent any person from doing anything which Canada has under the treaty undertaken to refrain from doing.
I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to clarify, for the members of the house, the meaning of that particular section of the agreement.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think on the orders of the day it is open to us to discuss the meaning of what is clearly a lucid expression and is a very good example of precision in language.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Does the minister consider that military information published by NORAD is classified and therefore not to be published in Canada?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): If the information is published it is unclassified.
Mr. Churchill:: Then I have to rise on a question of privilege and draw the attention of the house to the fact that in an answer given yesterday the minister stated that classified information was required in an answer to two questions and therefore it could not be made public. I refer to page 2034 of Hansard, the second column, to a question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. The first part of the question reads as follows:
As of January 1 each year from 1957 to 1963, how many Soviet bombers, by types, have been estimated capable of making at least a one way attack on the main industrial areas of southern Canada and the northern United States?
The answer given by the minister is:
Since the information requested is classified it should be appreciated that it would not be in the public interest for the government to answer these questions.
I have in front of me a copy of a publication by headquarters, North American air defence command, office of information, called "The NORAD Story" published in the spring of 1961, in which occur these sentences:
The Soviets now have 1,200 first line jets in their bomber force. Mr. Khrushchev says that they do not 

intend to build any more. Even if they don't, the Soviets, by cannibalizing parts, could still have an attack force of more than 500 of these atomic carriers as late as 1970 . . . Those 500 bombers could dump an estimated 1,000 megatons of destructive energy on this continent.
In the Ottawa Journal of April 1, 1963 Mr. Dave McIntosh states:
North American air defence command estimates that Russia has 1,000 bombers that could reach North American targets.
Then he names the types. The minister tells us that this information is classified, yet we get the information from other sources. He says that if NORAD publishes it, it is not classified. Consequently the house is being misled with regard to essential information.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, on this question the figures which the hon. gentleman has just read are, of course, approximations, or if I may use the expression used the other day in the committee, ball park figures. They are not precise figures; therefore they are not, as he has said, classified. The question put on the order paper by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked for specific information in respect to quantities and types of aircraft, and if I had produced figures which were rounded and not accurate, and any person could have substantiated the fact that they were not accurate, then I would have been accused of misleading the house.
It is not the practice to produce exact information in respect to the Soviet threat. It is not produced on an unclassified basis by NORAD, nor is it produced in Canada on an unclassified basis, and I am sure my hon. friend is very much aware of this. There was no misleading whatsoever. We cannot produce exact figures; therefore it was impossible to answer the question in the form in which it was asked.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister authorizes publication of the figure that there are approximately 400 ocean going Russian submarines, why could he not then authorize publication of figures with regard to the number of bombers which might be capable of attacking this continent?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I indicated before, they would be approximations, as was the case with the rounded number in respect to the number of Soviet submarines.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the question I intended to ask was to be directed to the Minister of Defence and arose out of the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Can the minister of defence tell us, if the

approximate information as to Soviet bombers asked in the question of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is not classified, why that information should not have been given in answer to the question on the order paper?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The question did not ask for approximate information, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: As a supplementary question, it asked for estimated figures. Can the minister tell us the difference between approximate and estimated figures.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes; the estimates asked for are quite accurate.


William Arnold Peters: The only thing that is accurate in that department.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is not about the Columbia river, but I think it is on a matter which is at least as important. It concerns the establishment of the Malaysian federation, which I know is welcomed by Canadians and commonwealth citizens generally. Could the minister advise whether and how the government has taken official notice of this happy and propitious event, and what are the plans for establishing diplomatic representations with this important new country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last part of the question this, of course, is a matter which will have to be considered, as it is now being considered, in the light of the date when the federation is expected to come into being, which is August 31.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question respecting the new United States regulations affecting Cuban trade and assets. Whether or not there is a question of privilege involved will depend, I think, on what his reply is today. At that time he said the government was investigating the matter, and in this morning's press there is an article purporting to state the official policy of the government.
Can he now answer the question I asked him last Tuesday respecting the new United
Inquiries of the Ministry States regulations applying to Cuban trade and assets? When he answered me last Tuesday, as I pointed out, he indicated that the government was examining these new regulations to ascertain whether any Canadian interests might be affected.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question. I have not seen the story to which my hon. friend directs my attention. I can only say the matter is not yet decided, because all of the facts are not before us. When these are before us we will decide what course should be taken, if any, and the house will be duly advised.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: A supplementary question. Has there been any change from the policy of the previous government toward Cuba? My question arises from a Canadian Press article appearing in several newspapers this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not really see any urgency in that question, unless the minister wants to answer it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to have an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: There are serious doubts about the question in the first place, but I do not think we should enter into a debate on the point at this stage. The minister has taken notice of it and I am sure he will reply in due course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could deal with it quickly. I would say in reply that if and when there should be any significant modifications in Canada's diplomatic or other relations with Cuba the house will be informed, in the same way as in the case of Canada's relations with other countries.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the genial, generous but garrulous Secretary of State for External Affairs now that he has the Columbia river treaty negotiations apparently smoothly under way. Will he inform the house whether negotiations have yet been commenced with the government of the United States for corridors through the Alaskan Panhandle, thereby providing access to tidewater for northern British Columbia and the Yukon?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell whether the Quebec government has asked the federal government to provide assistance for farmers of western Abitibi whose farm buildings were destroyed by a tornado June 30 last? (Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no such request has been received.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received a letter from the executive officers of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association, informing him of the chaos and crippling confusion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: -created throughout both the production and sales field-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: -of the Canadian lumbering industry, by the imposition of the sales tax-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member please sit down? The hon. member must know that when the Speaker stands hon. members are supposed to take their seats. This question is out of order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: May I reword my question so that it will be in order?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope so.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I would like to ask the
Minister of Finance whether he has received the aforementioned letter from the Canadian Lumbermen's Association, pointing out the situation they are in?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I have received the letter, Mr. Speaker, and I think their situation will be relieved very considerably by the action taken on Monday.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: As a supplementary question, did not this letter come to the minister's attention since the action he says took place on Monday?



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the silting that has filled in the channels of the La Have river, especially near Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, causing pulp and pit prop carriers with 21 foot draft to cancel their loading charters at this port, will the minister give consideration to carrying out immediate dredging in this area, which is urgently required in order to maintain shipping schedules during this summer?
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I shall contact the engineers of the department. I appreciate that the question is urgent and I shall consider it as such. I shall inform the hon. member as soon as I receive a report.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could the hon. gentleman tell the house whether it is true that civil servants at the national printing bureau must work nine hours a day, without any interruption, to print the official report of debates of the House of Commons?
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is against the rules to ask the minister whether or not certain statements are true or to convey information to the house. If the information the hon. gentleman seeks to convey is correct, I think it is unfortunate. I shall have to make some inquiries to find out.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Can the Minister of National Defence say whether he has now completed his review of the general purpose frigate program?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister, in the protracted consideration he is now giving that matter, consider the statement made by the chief of the naval staff that such ships are necessary for the Canadian navy?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, who is responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Has the minister's attention been drawn to recent articles in the Sudbury Star regarding the Northern Heights land assembly project, in which it is claimed residents cannot afford the payment of local improvement taxes, and that in any case they were under the impression when they bought the land that the price included local improvement charges?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question, which I can assure you is a matter of concern and urgency to some citizens. I am aware of the articles referred to, and also of the fact that certain purchasers of these lots are unhappy about the tax on local improvements.
The normal procedure in the sale of land assembly lots is for the purchase price to include the full cost of the land and approximately 50 per cent of the cost of services. The remaining 50 per cent is collected by the municipality on behalf of the federal-provincial partnership over a 15 year period by means of a special tax levy.
The claim by some residents that they were under the impression, when they bought the lots, that the price included full local improvement charges is difficult to understand. All purchasers bought the lots with the full knowledge that they were paying only 50 per cent of the cost of services. This information was included in the sales literature issued by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in several newspaper advertisements associated with the project and in the offer to purchase forms signed by all purchasers, and was further explained by the local corporation representatives at the time of sale.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification for my own benefit as to the difference between the question asked by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Mitchell) and answered by the minister, and that asked by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack) which was ruled out of order?


Mr. Speaker:: I would be very glad to inform the hon. member for Ontario. First of all, according to rule 39, in putting any such question or in replying to the same-
-no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same;
It was my judgment, rightly or wrongly, that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox was offering not only opinion but a very decided opinion in asking the question. Furthermore, I called on him three times to desist and he did not. If there is to be any co-ordination in the chamber it follows that the Speaker, at question time, must have the right to exercise his best judgment as to when a question is proper and when it is not.
So far as the hon. member for Sudbury is concerned, there was a little noise and I only heard half his question, so I am in no position to render judgment on that one. But may I point out that if the Speaker requests co-operation and asks an hon. member kindly to sit down during the rendering of judgment on a question, then I think the hon. member concerned should conform to that request. Otherwise the attempt to ask questions which may or may not be in order only leads to confusion. For that reason I took the stand I did.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I humbly regret having not sat down when you requested me to do so, but I was looking in the direction of the minister of whom I asked the question.



REGULATIONS RESPECTING BONUS ON WINTER CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister tell us when the regulations covering the $500 subsidy on winter housing construction will be printed and made available to the public.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the regulations are being developed at the present time. They will be released just as soon as that process is completed.

Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



DURUM WHEAT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Due to the fact that the quota on Durum wheat is based on specified acres and the quota on hard wheat is based on cultivated acres, a 15 bushel Durum quota is only equal to 7i bushels on hard wheat. Will the minister look into the matter of another Durum quota at once, to equalize this situation, as there are only 14 days left in the current crop year?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and I shall bring this to the attention of the Canadian wheat board. I would direct his attention, however, to the statement I made in the house when I outlined the wheat board policy with respect to quotas for the balance of the wheat year. At that time I gave the views of the wheat board on what would be an appropriate Durum wheat quota, and while I am prepared to bring this again to the attention of the board I have no intimation that they intend to change their policy. (Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State? What action does the minister intend to take following the C.B.C. decision to reject the report submitted by Mr. Justice Jules Poisson and the decision of the Federation of Authors and Artists of Canada to accept those considerations?
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any action required by a minister or the government. I understand the two parties to the dispute are discussing this matter at the present time, and I am led to believe that a satisfactory arrangement is likely to be reached.
(Translation):


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question? Is the minister aware of the reports made yesterday in the newspapers that C.B.C.'s artists might go on strike immediately?
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I believe, sir, it is not unusual for there to be some mention of the
[Mr. MacEachen.l

possibility of a strike at a time when there is a dispute going on between employers and employees, and the mere fact there is mention of the possibility of a strike would not, it seems to me, warrant the government, the minister or any third party intervening as long as the two parties are bargaining.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister of health. Does the department of health intend to take the necessary steps to warn Canadians against the use of dieffen-bachia which, in the opinion of the American Medical Association Journal, is a house plant which is "highly dangerous, highly poisonous and can cause corrosive burns"?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this
question should be addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. Dieffenbachia has been called highly dangerous and there are many, I am sure, who will agree. So far as its propensity to cause corrosive burns is concerned, I venture to suggest that perhaps that propensity is now considerably diminished.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether the minister could advise the house of any decisions he has arrived at, following his dinner with United States agricultural officials, regarding any changes in the Canadian quotas on United States turkeys entering Canada.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the hon. member's question I would say that I have met the turkey producers. I think they are very satisfied with the present arrangement, and there will be no change in so far as the present arrangement is concerned.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES REPLIES TO LETTERS FROM PROVINCIAL PREMIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question that came to my mind after reading the letters that he tabled yesterday from the provincial premiers. In

the six weeks during which the Prime Minister has had most of these letters has he replied to any of the points raised or any of the interpretations made in the letters, particularly the letter of Premier Manning?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I asked for the views of the premiers with regard to the setting up of this commission, and it did not seem necessary for me to reply to the letters I have received. Having now received letters from all the provincial governments except one, we will now proceed to set up the royal commission; because nothing in these letters, to my knowledge, would interfere with that course.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister yet received any letters from the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. It would not be customary, I understand, to receive a letter from the government of the Northwest Territories on a matter of this kind.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister in relation to his answer. Have the replies, particularly the one from Mr. Manning, been taken into account in the terms of reference that are being prepared for this commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
On the orders of the day:


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that Premier Manning will not be appointed chairman of the royal commission on bilingualism?
(Text) :



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources could give us any report on the condition of the Alaska highway. I understand they are having a bit of trouble up there with washouts and closures of the highway.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice and report to the hon. member.
(Translation):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he tell the house whether the authorities of the city of Chibougamau have submitted a request for a permit allowing the operation of an airport near that town?
(Text):


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transporl):: Mr. Speaker, representations have been received from the city of Chibougamau concerning the airport. It is not clear from the representations just precisely what it is they propose. As a consequence we have arranged to send an inspector from the Department of Transport to the city of Chibougamau to take this matter up with the city officials. I believe the inspector is in Chibougamau today.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the senior member for Queens asked me a question concerning the reconstruction of two runways at Summerside. With regard to the hon. member's reference to the program under the previous government may I say that there was no approved plan for the construction or reconstruction of a second runway at Summerside.
The main runway at Summerside was extended to 8,000 feet in 1956-57 coincidental with the advent of Argus operational aircraft into maritime air command. This has been the only runway construction authorized at the R.C.A.F. station, Summerside, in recent years. The R.C.A.F. has programmed maintenance funds to keep this main runway in good repair. Extensive repairs to taxiways and parking areas have been authorized during 1963-64.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: A supplementary question. Do I gather from the minister that there is no provision in the estimates which have been tabled for such construction this year?
2076	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Boafd Act Mr. Cardin: According to my information, that is correct.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT


John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of Bill No. C-80, to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: In
speaking on the third reading of this bill I have a few further comments I wish to make to the house, and more particularly to the Secretary of State.
One reason for my intervention at this time is that the hon. gentleman has indicated that he is tempted to speak again on this bill. Perhaps if the Secretary of State would agree not to speak further on it I should not myself feel tempted to take part in the debate. However, far be it from any member representing the Atlantic provinces to discourage the hon. gentleman from speaking again on a measure which is of such great importance to our area. Indeed, I believe it is of paramount importance that the Secretary of State should speak again in this debate because there are some matters, especially those related to the personnel of the board, which are deserving of further clarification not only for the benefit of hon. members but also for the benefit of those people who have accepted these positions. These are gentlemen who through no fault of their own find that their appointments are cut short because there has been a general election and a political party has come to office which apparently has not looked too kindly on appointments made by the former government.
This appears to be the sum and substance of the reasons this government had in mind for deleting a number of years from the length of appointment of these board members. It seems to me that this action in cutting short the term of appointments constitutes an affront to these individuals, and that the Secretary of State owes them some better explanation than he has so far given.
I should like to know from the hon. gentleman whether he has received any correspondence from the individuals in question. If so,
I should like to know what representations they have made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to interrupt. I am anxious to hear what he has to say, but there seems to be a terrific amount of noise in the chamber. I wonder if we could have a little better order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
(Mr. MacLean.]


Robert Carman Coates: I thank the Secretary of State for his kind remarks. I am pleased that he is anxious to hear my humble contribution to this debate. I am speaking as clearly as I can, and I hope this is coming through loud and clear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Speak into the microphone.


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. gentleman is such a fine individual I cannot keep my eyes off him. However, I will try to submit myself to the task of looking at this microphone and talking to it as best I can. It may be an improvement.
As I was saying, I am concerned about the terms afforded to those gentlemen who have been appointed to this board by the former administration. I still cannot understand why the Secretary of State and his colleagues should wish to curtail the length of appointment of these individuals. Hon. members opposite have never at any time denied in this house that they were the best men available in the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Carman Coates: Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh. Well, they did not laugh when these appointments were made, and when the Secretary of State spoke in this house at that time he certainly had nothing adverse to say about them. Has there been a change in attitude in the interval? Were hon. members talking out of both sides of their mouths then? If hon. members opposite do not feel these are able men, let them stand up and say they are no good. Let them tell us what they do not like about Brigadier Wardell or Frank Sobey.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Is it the purpose of his speech to try to make it impossible for the present members of the board to continue? He is doing his best to create a situation of disharmony, and I hope he fails.


Robert Carman Coates: Let me say that with the length of time they have it would not make much difference if they were there or not. If the hon. member is going to tell this house that the problems of the Atlantic provinces can be solved in a year, which is all the time they will have as members of the board, then he is as crazy as a hoot owl. The difficulties of the Atlantic provinces are not beyond solution, but it will take a longer time than that to deal with them. We started on the road to salvation. I am concerned about what will happen under this administration.
I am concerned about the way in which they are tackling what is the most significant piece of legislation to make it possible for

us to lift ourselves up and bring ourselves to a level with the rest of the Canadian nation.
As I have said, I do not think the Secretary of State has been fair to these gentlemen. I think he should say to them, we thought we would appoint you for a year to try to get over the accusation that we are being political partisans and that you are political partisans, and he knows he cannot prove that latter statement. So he is trying to push them out gently. The Secretary of State says I am causing disharmony. What greater disharmony could there be than is being caused by this legislation and especially by clause 4. How much more difficult will it be for any government in the future to get men who have great contributions to make to our area to serve on government boards if they are to have fears that they will be involved in political hassles when governments change?


An hon. Member:: You are involving them.


Robert Carman Coates: I am involving them, someone says. Let me tell him that his government involved them. I had nothing to do with it. I would have said nothing about these appointments. I would have said nothing about the new appointments if you people had not brought in this amendment. That is the reason I am talking now, because I hope that even at this late date the Secretary of State and the men around him will see the folly of their ways and correct them by allowing the men who he is convinced should serve to serve the full length of time which was promised to them. That is really an insignificant request of the government, and I am asking it on behalf of gentlemen who have given so much to our area already and are able and capable of giving so much more in the years ahead. These men will hesitate in future to get involved in government appointments to any board if this is the type of shoddy treatment given them because a government not of the same political stripe as this one happened to appoint them to their positions.
We have, Mr. Speaker, an awful lot of barkers on the other side of the house. They were over there until 1957 and they barked a lot. Then they came over here and barked some more, and now they are back there barking again like the trained seals they were before 1957 and are still, and they will probably never change. They will let a bunch of front benchers run the party, bring in outside consultants for anything and everything, and write budgets which have to be redressed, undressed and everything else. But they do not say very much or contribute much to the debates of this house.
Atlantic Development Boai'd Act
There is another matter on which I want to hear from the Secretary of State. He is a pretty clever individual with words, and I only wish I were as clever. However, I did not spend as much time at university as he did, perhaps, and my vocabulary did not grow as large as his. I hope he will understand my plain language, though, when I ask him for a plain statement of fact in ordinary words about the Chignecto complex and what is to be done about it. I note that the President of the United States has indicated that the Passamaquoddy project and the tidal power associated with it is to be reopened for negotiations and further talks. We in Canada have more potential tidal power available at a cheaper rate, and I should like to know what we are going to do about it.
I have asked the Secretary of State about this two or three times. He always answers my questions, but in such a way that you never know whether it is going to remain latent, as it is at the present time, or whether he is going to put the Atlantic development board into high gear and get them moving on the Chignecto complex. I feel that we should not be wasting a minute in investigating the potential of the bay of Fundy tides.


William Arnold Peters: Six years wasted.


Robert Carman Coates: Six years wasted, my hon. friend says. That is just how little he knows about it. I think we should get an unequivocal statement from the Secretary of State as to whether the potential of the bay of Fundy tides is going to be investigated. I do not want any ifs, buts, or "I will tell so and so, or ask so and so, and see what he says". He is a member of the government and the spokesman for the Atlantic development board. I want to know from him, and I am sure the people of the Atlantic provinces would like to know, just exactly what they are going to do. Are they going to carry out an examination of the tides of the bay of Fundy, or are they not? It is not a difficult question and can be answered yes or no. He is certainly in a position to tell the Atlantic development board to carry out such an investigation. He can also tell them not to, and in a few weeks' time when he has made these new appointments he can probably tell them to stall as well, whenever he wants to. But I feel that the Atlantic provinces should know, and know in no uncertain terms, whether such an investigation is going to be carried out.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when we hear from the Secretary of State about the appointment of these men he will tell us that they will be continued in office for the terms for which they were appointed originally. If he does not do so why does he bother
2078	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Boat'd. Act wasting their time for a year, or less than a year? Why not just tell them to do what they can in various other ways in which they can make a contribution? Actually the short space of time they will be sitting on the board under this legislation will not really allow them the chance to make the type of contribution they could make were they there for the period of time for which they were first appointed.
I also think it is unfair for the Secretary of State to say "Oh, these men can be reappointed". If they were going to be reappointed and the government were really thinking of reappointing them, why would they consider cutting down their term of office? That would not even have crossed their minds. Perhaps there are certain individuals on that board who the government consider are more tinted with blue than others, and so they can flush them out. But let us face it. When the year runs out I think all Canadians will learn the lie in the statement that these men can be reappointed, because there is not a chance in the world of any one of them being reappointed by this government. Otherwise they would never have made the effort to put in this amendment and try to fool the House of Commons into thinking they were doing anything but disposing of people who they considered politically unsatisfactory to this government.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in my remarks, as usual. I should like to say I repudiate and resent very much the suggestion of the Secretary of State that my hon. friend, colleague and neighbour, the hon. member for Cumberland, would either by his actions or by his remarks do anything which would bring disharmony to any move to advance the welfare of the maritime provinces. His record has been well established and I do not have to cite the facts relating thereto.
This has been a very interesting debate, Mr. Speaker. However, if I have any regret it is for the fact that yesterday the chairman cut off the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when he was cataloguing the virtues of the many native maritimers who had won great acclaim for Canada. However, had he gone on to complete the full list perhaps we would never have completed what we did yesterday.
I have one small matter, small only in terms of the length of my remarks and not otherwise, and I mention it because it is of great importance. I have been seeking in this session by questions directed to the Minister of Public Works and the Prime Minister, and at other times, to get a clear statement


from the present government in respect to that great national project, the Prince Edward Island causeway. I have asked the Secretary of State to give us the clear assurance that this major project is one which will not be considered by the board because the decision relating to its construction taken by the former government will be upheld and carried out by the present government.
I have not yet obtained that information, and I might say that despite having sought information on the Prince Edward Island causeway several times from various members of the government I have elicited absolutely no information. The only information one can obtain is through press releases emanating from the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) who, as far as I know, does not have administrative responsibility for this important function.
I think information sought in the House of Commons should be given in the House of Commons, and I recall that the former prime minister made a concise, precise and definite statement in respect of this project when he said that the causeway would be built. This is the kind of thing we hope to have from the present government. I am delighted to read the press releases from the Solicitor General. He is my neighbour. In fact had I been born a mile further west I would have had the pleasure of voting against him in Prince county. I read with interest everything he gives to the newspapers and I regard him highly, but I should still like to hear from the minister in charge or the Prime Minister exactly what is going to be done in respect of the causeway; and I trust that the Secretary of State, who used to be so deeply interested in this project, will tell us whether the causeway is going ahead.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he suggesting that the Solicitor General does not know what he is talking about when he issues these press releases and statements?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I would not dare to make that suggestion, although I have the greatest regard for the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, who usually knows what he is talking about. I would not go that far because the Solicitor General and I are neighbours and friends. We are interested in the causeway, and we in Prince Edward Island do not regard this as a partisan measure at all. I have always paid tribute to my predecessor from Queens, Mr. Mathe-son, who spoke strongly about this project in the House of Commons. We do not regard it as a partisan measure, but we would like

this government of decisive action-perhaps we should not expect that now that the 60 days are over-to tell us what they are going to do so that we will know where we are going.
I could not help but agree also with the hon. member for Cumberland with respect to the appointments. Yesterday the Secretary of State eschewed any suggestion of partisanship and I very much hope that the present members will be reappointed. I do not say I expect it, but I do hope so; because they are men who have made a great contribution to the Atlantic provinces' economy and who could, had they been left unfettered, have done great things under the very fine legislation passed under the aegis of the former government.
I hope too that in disavowing this partisanship the government will take the suggestions, or indeed perhaps the nominations, of various groups in the maritime provinces like the maritime federation of agriculture and others as to the additional six members of the board, because we have been assured that the government is not looking for six Liberals but simply for six, able, representative people, and non-partisan bodies such as these could be very helpful to the government.
I was a bit unhappy yesterday when one of the members of the New Democratic party suggested we were holding up this vital legislation. This, of course, is not the case. One can compare the debate this session with the debate last session when the board was established. However, no member representing the maritime provinces, knowing what was done by the government led by my leader, who in six years did such great things for the maritime provinces, who redressed so many long standing grievances, who moved quickly on our behalf to improve our economic, social and cultural life, should be accused of being overly perceptive or suspicious having seen a board appointed by such a government smothered by a board appointed by a government of which the apparently still remaining kingpin, the Minister of Finance, was once prepared to subsidize us by shipping us to more prosperous parts of the country rather than making efforts toward improving the maritimes. The government led by my leader never at any time undertook to move maritimers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; they moved them.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It did undertake to move the maritimes forward rather than shipping us out with subsidies or anything else. When we consider that the former government's initiative in this regard is being smothered by the tinkering of the present government I think we have good reason to look once, to
Atlantic Development Board Act look twice, perhaps to look thrice at what is going on, the implications thereof and the motives behind it. If the present government even comes close to attaining the actions on behalf of the maritimes of the previous government it will certainly make history for itself.
I do hope that our worst fears will not be realized; that the Minister of Finance, who is prepared to revise so many other things, will revise his thinking in respect of the maritimes. I trust that revision will be reflected in governmental action, and that we will not have to move to upper Canada but can stay in that delightful Atlantic region. I hope we will get the same measure of assistance given to us by the former government. I hope that despite obvious partisan suggestions the board will be allowed to function and to go forward. There is no member on this side of the house who will seek to make political hay if it does so. We are interested in the advancement of the region. We are a little concerned because we had something which we had sought for 90 years, and it was going forward under the former government in the last six years.
With respect to the causeway, I should like to say that the leader of our party was not afraid to speak of the causeway in all parts of the country because he regarded it as one of those great national programs of development, and we will not forget him when the day comes to express our opinion.


An hon. Member:: When?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: We do not know when, but possibly it may not be too long. The maritimes will not forget what was done, and with the memory of the contrast between what was done in six years and what was not done in 22 years the people of our region will look very carefully at the functions of the Atlantic development board, and all the finesse and skill of the Secretary of State may be required in its performance.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State does not need to have extraterrestrial communication, of course, to know the reason I am impelled to rise. It has to do with a remark he made in interrupting the hon. member for Cumberland, a statement that I would not have expected to come from a parliamentarian of the minister's experience. Indeed, in the years I have been here I have never before heard a minister of the crown challenge the right of a member to advance his arguments in this house-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not challenge them at all.

Atlantic Development Boat'd Act


John George Diefenbaker: -by the threat that if he did it would be hard on those members of the board appointed by the previous government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. I know the right hon. gentleman has never wanted to misrepresent the words of any hon. member. If the right hon. gentleman wishes to take exception to anything I say I do not question his right to do so, but I suggest that he take exception to what I really did say. I asked the hon. member for Cumberland if he was trying to make it impossible for those gentlemen to remain on the board because of the attitude he was taking, and I said I thought he was making it difficult. That is all I said. So far as I am concerned, what the hon. member for Cumberland said would make no difference whatever to my attitude to the members of the board, whom I have always respected.


John George Diefenbaker: That interruption was not based on a point of privilege. From time to time when the hon. gentleman disagrees with any matter being dealt with in the house he will raise what he calls a point of privilege, but which in fact is a spurious reason for making an extra speech.
I repeat that the explanation in no way improves the situation. Imagine; after all the political manipulation that is apparent here on the part of the Secretary of State in introducing this legislation to increase the size of this board so that he can remove members that have been on it, he suddenly develops this solicitation for the members of that board and the fact that the hon. member for Cumberland by his conduct is endangering the opportunity of those members to serve. This is something that I would not have expected from one who, through the years, has not been averse to political manipulation. He was simply warning the hon. gentleman that these estimable gentlemen on this board might find themselves in the position of not being able to continue on the board because of the statement the hon. member was making. What nonsense. The explanation is worse than the threat.
I watch him directing them over on that side of the house. They speak and when he raises his eyes they become silent. I have seen him in operation. As long as he continues his direction


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman should get a mirror.


John George Diefenbaker: I can see the hon. gentleman without a mirror. This is the kind of thing that used to characterize the former government. This is the kind of thing that was


so much in evidence in Winnipeg, at the Fort Garry hotel. I am not going into that occasion unless provoked into doing so.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that that statement was a threat or, in the alternative, was an alibi in advance. These people would be removed, and the explanation would then be given that the hon. member for Cumberland, or those who have similar views as to the ability of these people to carry on, were the cause. The alibi would be that if they hadn't spoken he would have been beneficent. But these members dared to speak on behalf of the quality of those appointees, and having so dared their position became impossible. I can only say that whichever explanation is given by the Secretary of State it is not representative of what, from time to time, one expects in the House of Commons.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. I am not going to mention the course taken by the former government. The maritimers were the forgotten people. When the government of which I had the honour to be the head came into office, we recognized conditions in the mar-itimes. We made available immediately $25 million a year for distribution in the maritimes, and later raised it to $35 million. We made available extra subsidies. I could go on, but I am not going to repeat this story, because we in this party believed that there should be a reasonably equal opportunity in every part of Canada, and that the maritime provinces had not received that consideration to which they were entitled. This was the philosophy.
When the appointments are made I will look at them with great interest to ascertain whether the unsubtle threat is carried into effect. The hon. gentleman, of course, will direct whom he wants. I am sure we will then know whether merit and ability are to be considered, and whether the amendment of this legislation is to be a monumental example of political consideration taking preeminence over the needs of the maritime provinces.
There is one other matter I should like to mention. The hon. member for Queens mentioned the causeway. We made it very clear that this was something we looked into for a very long time. There were arguments on both sides. Many felt it would be beneficial but some said that it was not structurally feasible, that it could not be built. We had a careful examination made by engineers, and they determined that it could be built. On the other hand there were some who said it was not economically feasible. The careful examination made, and which continued for a considerable period

of time, brought forth the conclusion that it was economically feasible and that in the light of a period of years, it would actually be self liquidating. It is something to which I feel the people of Prince Edward Island are entitled. The people of Canada as a whole accept the principle that there shall be equality of opportunity everywhere within our country. This project is one that will pay national dividends in the strengthening of the bonds of our country.
I would not have risen except to repeat my feelings, which have been made clear throughout the years, that these people by the sea, whether in Newfoundland or in the other three Atlantic provinces, should receive an extra uplift financially and economically. This was our cardinal principle, and it would have meant that the people there would be able to look forward, generation to generation, instead of having to follow the course so often followed since confederation of migrating to other parts of this country and to the United States.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion upon which I have had the opportunity of addressing the house while you have occupied the chair. I wish to extend to you my congratulations upon your election to your present post, and to express our interest and satisfaction with the way in which you are presiding over our deliberations.
The bill before us is one which affects the Atlantic provinces, and comes forward in this parliament, as it did in the last parliament, for discussion. My remarks in connection with this bill will be very brief indeed. I should like to emphasize a number of important views on this legislation which in my judgment make it very important for the economic development of the Atlantic provinces.
First of all, there is provision in the legislation that the Atlantic development board will be empowered and obliged to develop an over-all co-ordinated plan for the Atlantic provinces. To me this seems to be of the very essence of the problem facing us, particularly in the field of employment. The Atlantic provinces economic council has from time to time made assessments of the number of jobs that will be needed in the Atlantic provinces over the next 10 years not only to absorb new entrants into the labour force but also to reduce the level of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces to a comparable national level. That number of new jobs required is large. It can only be reached by the development of a coordinated plan over a period of years, directed to the various industries and directed to proposals that will provide these jobs in these
11,	1963
Atlantic Development Boat'd Act various industries. That is the first fundamental of this legislation, the development of this over-all co-ordinated plan.
The time is certainly past for ad hoc expedients to meet the problems of the Atlantic provinces. This particular approach was emphasized in the report of the royal commission on economic prospects headed by the Minister of Finance; and I must say that the junior member for Queens was less than fair in his interpretation of the proposals made by the Minister of Finance in that report. The minister made a number of important proposals directed to the development of the economy of that area, a number of proposals that were not acted upon by the previous government, and he went on to say that if, after these proposals had been put into effect, unemployment at a high level still prevailed and people still received very marginal incomes, then consideration ought to be given to allowing these people to secure employment and opportunities in other parts of Canada.
Surely that is an entirely different concept than to say the Minister of Finance advocated a large exodus of people from the Atlantic provinces. The minister made concrete and constructive proposals in that royal commission report, and he took a long step in his budget to implement those proposals when he provided for the most ambitious tax incentives ever provided by a Canadian government to encourage the location of industry in such an area.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I wonder if the minister is referring at this time to the preliminary report of the commission, pages 99 and 100, in what he has interpreted as the minister's views?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am referring to the report which my hon. friend has in mind, and I believe the interpretation which I have given to the approach of the Minister of Finance is the interpretation that any fair minded person would give to that particular royal commission, which has been unfairly and unjustly exploited for political advantage in the perpetuation of a gross misrepresentation of what the Minister of Finance said in that report.


Mr. MacEwan:: They do not believe that in Cape Breton.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a fact that the Minister of Finance made a number of proposals, one of which was the establishment of a capital projects commission for the carrying out of projects in the public sector of the economy, in the field of transportation and

Atlantic Development Board Act in the field of power. That proposal was before the previous government for five years and no action .was taken upon it.
The hon. member for Queens has had much to say about the great things the former government did for the Atlantic provinces. I would like to remind him of some of the history that he obviously has failed to consider in his speech. The former government, following the election of 1957, took one important step in the field of Atlantic adjustment grants. That was the single step taken in that parliament by that government that was new and original. It did bring into effect the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, which had been proposed by the previous government in its budget and accepted by both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. These were the only two things done in that parliament. In the twenty fourth parliament, consisting of four sessions, the former government did not introduce a single measure or single enactment in this house affecting the Atlantic provinces, and I challenge any hon. member of the present House of Commons to indicate to me any new single measure introduced during the twenty fourth parliament by the former government affecting the Atlantic provinces.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Might I ask the minister a question? Would he not say that the establishment of a Canadian coastguard was an entirely new concept brought into being?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not even a piece of legislation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All the new coastguard consisted of at that time was an announcement, and that was the extent of the change it brought about, in addition to a paint job and a few uniforms for the members of the Canadian coastal services.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think this fact ought to be borne in mind when the hon. member for Queens extols what he considers to be the achievements of the former government. The twenty fourth parliament elapsed without one single measure being brought forward affecting the Atlantic provinces. It is a fact that again in the twenty fifth parliament, a minority parliament as was the case in 1957, and faced again with the immediate imminence of an election, the government moved to set up an Atlantic development board, and we supported that measure. At that time on third reading we proposed an amendment asking that the government of

the day establish an Atlantic development fund in connection with the board itself. That amendment was voted down by hon. members of the house, and the board was brought into existence without having at its disposal a sum of money that would enable it to carry out any projects.
In the particular legislation now before us there is provision for an Atlantic development fund in the amount of $100 million that will be available to this board for carrying out projects in the Atlantic provinces. I think that certainly is a major new step.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would he not at this time indicate to the house, for the benefit of the maritime and Atlantic province members especially, just what projects he as Minister of Labour has in mind for the Atlantic area; and as Minister of Labour surely by now his plans are advanced enough to mention a few?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about a very important new proposal which provides $100 million for the development of projects in the Atlantic provinces, and that certainly is a proposal that ought to secure the enthusiastic support of the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not intend to speak-


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister permit-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister has the floor.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would he permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Go ahead.


Malcolm MacInnis: You say it should engender enthusiastic support. If you would answer my previous question as to what you, as Minister of Labour-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. gentleman that he should address himself to the Chair at all times.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And ask a question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the Minister of Labour indicate, to the Atlantic province members especially, as he is the minister who should have available in his department something in the way of planned projects for the Atlantic region, what is being planned in this regard? We would appreciate it very much if the minister would advise us what some of these specific projects are.


Howard Russell MacEwan: He has not asked the Minister of Finance yet.


An hon. Member:: He has not asked Jack, either.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic development fund in the amount of $100 million is at the disposal of the Atlantic development board, the function of which is to provide and develop projects and programs for the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member ought to be aware also that last week the House of Commons took another step forward in the establishment of the new department of industry, and part of that proposal is the setting up of an area development agency that will be specifically charged with the job of providing a special thrust in areas of chronic unemployment. No area will be more directly affected by the work of this area development agency than the area represented by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: And the Minister of Labour.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Minister of Finance has provided in the budget a number of new fiscal incentives that will encourage new manufacturing and processing plants in the Atlantic area; and no area will benefit more, or stands to benefit more from this proposal than the area represented by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I could go on and enumerate other proposals which have been made and will continue to be made by the present government to bring down the high level of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces.
I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that any hon. member from the Atlantic provinces would rise in this house and take satisfaction from the record of the past five years. In this period we have seen levels of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces reaching 16 per cent and, in certain provinces, 20 per cent of the work force. That has been the case in the Atlantic provinces; the highest unemployment of any part of Canada; higher unemployment in the period of the past six years than in any previous period in the recent history of Canada. How can any hon. member of this House of Commons take gratification in the progress being made when that large number of people in this part of Canada are unemployed and have been unemployed, in many cases, for some time?


Mr. Graffiey:: Stop being a demagogue and get to work.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No doubt certain measures were undertaken by the former government.
I do not for a moment detract from the interest taken by certain hon. gentlemen in the welfare of the people of the Atlantic 28902-5-133
1L 1963	2083
Atlantic Development Boat'd Act provinces. However, I think it would be a perversion of history to allow hon. gentlemen to create the impression that economic prosperity and growth prevailed in the Atlantic provinces during the last five years, because the contrary was the case; they had the highest unemployment of any part of Canada.
No industry has been more affected by this unemployment than the coal industry, which lost one and a half million tons of its production in the five years during which the former government presided over the economic affairs of Canada. I think the authority given to the board to undertake the development of an over-all, co-ordinated plan, and the provision for $100 million at the disposal of the board, are important steps taken at the present time. They add to the bill adopted in the last session.
Much has been said about appointments. One would think that no partisan considerations were in the mind of the former government when they made the appointments to the Atlantic development board. One would think that political considerations had no influence whatsoever on the then minister of national revenue in making the appointments to that board. I think an examination of the background of the gentlemen on the board at the present time, no matter how estimable, no matter how able they are, indicates that certainly political considerations were not left out. There is no provision in this bill that will deny the services of these men to the Atlantic development board. They are eligible for reappointment, and it may be that when the time for reappointment comes hon. gentlemen will be surprised that their friends will continue to serve on that board. Surely it is not unfair-


Mr. Woolliams:: You may regret those words.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that a new government such as this government should have an opportunity to assess the work of the members of this board, to assess their attitude and their willingness to work with a new minister. Surely it is fair that a new government should have that opportunity, and that is all that is provided in the changes made in this legislation. These members are not being asked to leave the board; they will be eligible for reappointment at the expiration of their term of office. Certainly that does not seem to me to be an unfair provision asked for by a new government, because this amending legislation adds to the importance of the Atlantic development board.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to hold up this bill.
I listened with interest to the speech of the

Atlantic Development BoaYd Act Minister of Labour, and there are a few matters which he mentioned upon which I should like to comment briefly.
The minister spoke at great length about the famous Gordon commission report on the maritime provinces, and he spoke about what the hon. member for Queens had said in this regard. Well, as I stated in the budget debate, we all know what the Minister of Finance said in the famous Gordon report. It was even so famous in the maritime provinces that he had to come to my constituency, I think in 1961, and make another Gordon report at the Sutherlands River rural high school. At that time he said "I did not really mean to say they had to move out. I meant" this, that, and the other thing. But, as I said in the budget debate, we are leery of the Minister of Finance. He is the man controlling the purse strings, and I hope the Minister of Labour has a lot of influence with the Minister of Finance in order to help our area. I am sure we were glad to have the former minister of finance from Nova Scotia, who helped us a great deal. I hope the Minister of Labour is really in thick, as we say in the maritime provinces, with the present Minister of Finance.
The minister said that the only new thing brought forward in the twenty fourth parliament was the Atlantic adjustment grants. That was new. The minister is a little older than I, although not too much older, and he may not have been in the government through the years here in Ottawa. I remember that great leader of the province of Nova Scotia, Hon. Angus L. Macdonald, who was respected by everybody and who was a great friend of all Nova Scotians. He also did a great job here in wartime as minister of naval affairs. For many years he came to Ottawa seeking adjustment grants in order to bring the Atlantic provinces up to the level of the other provinces of Canada, and he was turned down. I do not know whether the minister was here during the last few years when his friend, who was premier for a short time, Mr. Henry Hicks, who is now president of a university, also came to Ottawa and returned with empty hands. The Atlantic adjustment grants were new, as the minister said. If they were the only new thing accomplished in that parliament it was certainly worth while electing a Conservative government under the Leader of the Opposition during that period.
The minister also spoke of the matter of the coastguard. He said, if I am quoting him correctly, that all we did was put a few coats of paint on existing ships. We brought forward a new coastguard plan. I would tell the minister-he has probably heard it before-that tenders were called for coastguard ships which were 95 feet in length, and the

result of the tenders was that two yards, one in the St. Lawrence area and one in the great lakes area, were the lowest tenderers for the three ships. The then minister of transport, the hon. member for Three Rivers, was dealing with this matter. I approached him at that time and said "If you want to get the work load shared around this country, why not give the lowest maritime yard a ship, one to the St. Lawrence and one to the great lakes?" That is what was done. One was launched in the St. Lawrence area and one in my area, at Pictou shipyards. I was not invited to the launching a short time ago, I do not know why. Nevertheless, the building of that ship created a lot of employment. That was one way in which we helped the Atlantic provinces.
Of course we do not pretend that during the six years we were in office we did everything which was required, but we got things moving along very well. I know that in 1950 or 1951 mines in my area began to close down, and at that time many of our younger people had nothing to turn to. It was then that a start should have been made in the provision of vocational training. That was done by the former government, and vocational schools have been built as a result of legislation which they brought in. One will be opened in my own area soon, and I am sure the Minister of Labour will be the first to admit that this is a step in the right direction to help our young people get the necessary technical training so they may make progress in their trades and stay in their own areas.
That is all I wish to say. My theme has been that although we may not have done everything in the last six years, we did start things rolling. Many of the ideas brought forward by the Minister of Labour and his colleagues are, in my view, only extensions of projects we commenced. We are very leery of the Minister of Finance, as all Canadians are. I hope to goodness the Minister of Labour is in thick with him as far as our native province is concerned, because we certainly need it.


Malcolm MacInnis: Before the question is put I want to say I am happy the Minister of Labour should have indicated that although the board would be responsible for the projects it recommends, he would take it upon himself to see that no area would benefit more than the area which I have the honour to represent. I am looking forward with great interest to seeing just what this benefit will be and how the hon. gentleman can indicate to the house that my area will benefit most from the projects undertaken by the board.

Now 1 have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is he prepared to say that representation on the board, the additional representation, will be drawn from those with knowledge of labour, fishing, mining, agriculture and the lumber industry?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I bring it to the attention of hon. members that the minister has already spoken and cannot speak twice in the debate?
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: On
division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (President of the Privy Council) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of an economic council of Canada.
He said:
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the measure now before us is, in my opinion, of vital importance. Its purpose is to establish economic planning in our country. That is why, before going over its main features, I should like first to try and explain that planning by giving a brief analysis of the economic problems we are faced with at the present time and to indicate exactly what kind of planning the government intends to adopt.
(Text):
The so-called inventory or short term cycle appears to be inherent in our present economic system. The mechanism of supply and demand is not self adjusting, at least over a short period of time. It would be surprising if it were, because it originates from the individual and free choice of millions of consumers and suppliers. The process of adjustment takes time, and it operates mainly through supply rather than demand factors. Demand remains fairly stable during the whole cycle, but as the upward phase develops supply increases more rapidly than demand. This inevitably leads to an involuntary accumulation of inventories which cannot go on indefinitely. When suppliers feel that inventories are too high they reduce new orders, thus bringing the transition between prosperity and recession; because, as a result, production and employment must decline. During the recession production increases more slowly or decreases more rapidly than demand, and suppliers draw on their inventories. This downward movement must come to an end 28902-5-133J
Economic Council of Canada before inventories are depleted and eventually new orders start to rise again. Thus conditions are set for a new phase of prosperity.
Inventory cycles have been fairly regular in Canada as elsewhere in peacetime. Each cycle, with its upward and downward movements, lasts for about three years. For instance, recessions have developed in 1954, 1957 and 1960; 1955, 1958 and 1961 have been years of recovery; 1956, 1959 and 1962 have been years of cyclical peaks. But even in the latter half of 1962 the Canadian economy was undergoing a considerable degree of hesitation and uncertainty. Total final demand levelled off in the third quarter of 1962, the first such pause since the low point of the last business cycle contraction.
We cannot hope to get rid of this important sources of economic instability without adequate planning arrangements, closer co-operation between the public and private sectors of the economy, and more flexible and selective policies.
But short term problems do not constitute the only difficulties we have to overcome. Indeed, several signs indicate that the Canadian economy since the late 1950's has been suffering from basic weaknesses and lack of growth, at a time when our labour force was and still is increasing rapidly. The gross national product per capita in constant dollars increased by 22 per cent between 1949 and 1956, but declined by about 4 per cent between 1956 and 1962. This is the most revealing sign of stagnation in Canada.
What seems to be the origin of that new trend? A rapid survey of the major components of our gross national product shows that consumer expenditures, exports and government expenditures have continued to grow and have contributed at the same time to growth. Investment is the only major component which has declined during that period. Between 1947 and 1957 total investment in constant dollars more than doubled, and increased each year except in 1954. Between 1957 and 1961 it had declined each year and the decrease reached about 13 per cent in 1961. During the same period investment in business capital as opposed to housing and social capital showed a reduction of approximately 25 per cent; yet expenditures on investment goods are precisely those which are the very immediate and basic cause of growth. (Translation):
What would be the essential reason, the main cause of this stagnation, of this inadequate growth?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, would the minister allow a question? Does the minister quote these figures to lay the blame at the door of Canadian investors,
2086	HOUSE OF
Economic Council of Canada industrialists and businessmen, by making them responsible tor this decline of investments in the production field?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to blame anybody. I merely note facts, as they are shown or measured by the dominion bureau of statistics. What then, as I was saying a moment ago, is the main cause of this stagnation, of this inadequate growth, of this chronic anemia in our economy? I think that it is due to the fact that, in the present context of the world markets and of the traditional policies of the state, our private sector has almost exhausted the investment potentialities which technology created in Canada at the beginning of this century.
Of course, to substantiate this explanation I would have to make a long statement, and I wish to spare the hon. members-


Gilles Grégoire: You do not have what it takes.


Maurice Lamontagne: No, but it is only that- (Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Might I ask the minister a question. I wish he would give us a longer statement because he seems to have suggested that social capital, housing, and things like that are not the answer. He seems to be suggesting that the answer is in the private business sector, and I think that if he has gone that far perhaps he could give us an explanation.


Maurice Lamontagne: I do not think I have drawn any such conclusion. I merely said- and I have given some evidence of this- that our economy was developing at a much slower rate and that the more or less fundamental reason for this, the major cause of this decline, was the reduction in the field of investment in general, but more particularly in the field of private investment.


Gilles Grégoire: I challenge the minister to prove that.


Maurice Lamontagne: You can always go back to the official figures.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to show some official figures. If you refer to the increase of tax in Canada and such matters, you will find figures which prove that industry in Canada is diminishing.
(Translation):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking a question or making a statement?
Might I remind him that the minister has the floor and that he should not be inter-

rupted except to ask a question if the minister is willing to give an answer.


Maurice Lamontagne: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, instead of engaging in a long explanation of that chronic anemia, I would simply like to give at this time an illustration of what seems to have happened in Canada in the last few years.
The paper and the automobile industries both owe their existence to technology which appeared in Canada, like in the rest of the world, at the turn of the century. At first, when they appeared on the scene, they represented a considerable potential of direct and indirect investment and employment.
We just have to think of the new plants, of the various power projects which have been carried out, of the lumber operations, of the development of the oil and steel industries, of the building of service stations and roads. Like many others which have contributed so much to our accelerated development, those industries will probably continue to expand in the future. But I think they will do so at a considerably slower pace, because, as I said a moment ago, they have practically finished developing their initial investment potential in the present context of world markets and traditional government policies.
If this diagnosis is correct, as I think it is, it should be a cause for worry, because it reveals a deep-seated ailment within our economy. That ailment cannot be healed by denouncing those who diagnose it as prophets of gloom and doom.
The problems created by recessions and stagnation in our country are made even more difficult today because of the upheavals in the world around us. Those upheavals, we find them first in the field of technology, where the first signs of a new technological revolution enable us to see already the rapid progress of automation which requires an ever more specialized labour force and which destroys, in its path, many of our traditional sources of employment.
Those upheavals, we find them also in the radical changes in the world trade patterns which take place under our eyes with the formation of huge trading blocs. Those upheavals will have deep repercussions on the Canadian economy and will require the radical transformation of several industries and regions.
It would be unrealistic to think that the private sector left to itself could overcome those difficulties. Radical changes presently taking place in the world and the adjustments

they will make necessary in our country, the recessions and the anemia affecting the Canadian economy demand not only a new association between the public and the private sectors, but also a bolder and more dynamic government leadership.
To overcome our present difficulties, we need new policies, applied in a new spirit and within new administrative structures. In other words, we need a plan so that the various aspects of the economic policy will be well co-ordinated and so that the private sector can work in the same direction as the government towards the common objective of harmonious growth.
That new role of the government is indicated to us by Pope John XXIII in Mater et Magistra, where he said:
It is requested of public authorities responsible for the common good, that they intervene in a wide variety of economic affairs, and that, in a more extensive and organized way ... It is necessary that they take active interest, the better to increase output of goods and to further social progress for the benefit of all citizens. This intervention of public authorities encourages, stimulates, regulates, supplements and complements.
It is easily seen that according to the Pope's thinking, the action of public authorities cannot be effective without planning. There is nothing too revolutionary in this, because to ignore planning is to leave human order to the determinism of chance. Any effective collective action needs a plan. Otherwise, you have anarchy, confusion and often failure, because to leave things to chance works only in particularly favourable circumstances. But the term planning itself is ambiguous and can mean two things quite different: indicative planning or imperative planning.
(Text):
In his book entitled "Beyond the Welfare State" Professor Myrdal underlines the fact that planning can take various forms. I want to quote him.
Economic planning is facing widely different problems for establishing goals, choosing means, fixing targets and implementing policies. Decisions on the public policies implied in planning are arrived at in very different ways and the sanctions applied in order to carry them into effect are also different.
Basically, planning can take two different forms. It can be a conscious and organized attempt by governments and other collective bodies to co-ordinate public and private policies more rationally in order to reach desirable economic objectives or goals more effectively. This is what is more and more called indicative planning, which provides
Economic Council of Canada wider knowledge of prospects and targets as well as credit and fiscal incentives, but which excludes compulsion and direct controls as normal instruments of state intervention. Planning can also be a systematic attempt by the state to impose economic goals on society and to use direct controls in order to achieve them. This is imperative planning which operates through compulsion.
Imperative planning provides a pattern which can be easily adapted to the conditions of underdeveloped countries. Here again I wish to quote Professor Myrdal.
By the very logic of the underdeveloped countries' situation, planning becomes programmatic in its approach. It does not, as in the western countries, force itself upon a national community through a gradual process which finally results in a fait accompli... In the underdeveloped countries the idea precedes its realization. As economic development cannot be expected to come by itself, planning becomes a precondition for development, not, as in the western countries, a later consequence of development and all the other changes which accompanied it. . . (In the underdeveloped countries), in principle and in theory, planning anticipates public policies. It does not grow out of the necessity to co-ordinate such policies as have already been initiated.
It would be very surprising if indicative planning could succeed in the underdeveloped countries because they do not have the infrastructure of voluntary organizations which that kind of planning requires. It would perhaps be even more surprising if imperative planning could work in the democratic and industrialized countries of the western world.
In Canada, for instance, we have developed a mixed economy with a public and a private sector. Consumers, private producers and labour unions cherish their freedom. Public authorities can influence their behaviour but they could not control their decisions, certainly not in peacetime. Direct and permanent controls on investment, production, prices and wages, which are required by - imperative planning in a mixed economy, would not only be politically unacceptable but would also give very poor economic results. Private investment, for instance, is a highly volatile phenomenon and does not respond positively to compulsion.
Imperative planning would prove to be unworkable at the national level in Canada for another obvious reason. The federal government does not have the constitutional powers required to impose direct control and it is very unlikely that it would succeed in getting such powers which fall under provincial jurisdiction at the present time.
Thus, in a country like Canada, imperative planning would be politically unacceptable, economically undesirable and constitutionally unworkable.

Economic Council of Canada


William Heward Grafftey: Tell that to your finance minister.


Maurice Lamontagne: Those few Canadians who are still advocating this type of planning are deceiving nobody but themselves.
(Translation):
The planning which the government advocates and intends to initiate is essentially indicative and incentive planning. It will be a planning without any coercion and control. In our opinion, this is the only kind of planning desirable and feasible in our country.
I have no intention, at this stage, to explain in detail the bill under study. Its purpose is to establish an economic council which will consist of a chairman, two directors and 25 other members. This council will have three main duties. First of all, it will have to initiate research on all aspects of our economic life, try to foresee the normal behaviour of the economy and define the rate of growth, on the whole and by sectors, which is needed for the full use of our resources. In other words, the economic council will have to prepare a plan.
The council will also submit recommendations to the government on policies to be followed and on the means of promoting the highest possible level of employment and production in our country. It will therefore have the responsibility of recommending methods and processes capable of insuring the implementing of the plan.
The council will finally take over the functions heretofore given to the national productivity council. That integration, in the opinion of all the interested parties, has become most desirable and does not imply in any way that this government is lacking confidence in the members of the national productivity council. On the contrary, I wish on behalf of the government, to express to Mr. DeYoung and all the members of the council our most sincere appreciation for the services they have rendered. I am sure that the experience they acquired and the work they have done will be most profitable to the new economic council.
So, the purpose of this bill is to institute economic planning in Canada through a close consultation with the provinces and the private sector of our economy. For that purpose, it provides for the establishment of an economic council with very wide responsibilities in the field of research and very vast powers of recommendation. It creates planning structures both wide and flexible. Thus, we shall be in a much better position than

before not only for acquiring a true knowledge of our economic problems but also, I hope, to find practical solutions.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, would the minister allow me a question?


Maurice Lamontagne: Certainly.


Gilles Grégoire: When the President of the Privy Council speaks of the economic council, he seems to refer always to the field of production. Could the minister tell the house whether the economic council will concern itself with indicative planning in the field of exchange, which ranks second in any well organized economic system?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the bill in its present form will enable the council to carry on research in all fields and on all economic problems.
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: I had not anticipated, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) would have been introducing this bill, in view of the fact it was in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). However, I want to congratulate him upon his presentation-not that I agree with much of what he said but with his knowledge of economics and his devotion to that field, when he speaks on any matter, he is naturally listened to with interest. I should like to say, too, that this morning I decided that it might not be inappropriate at this time if I were to look over some of the views that he had expressed in times past, as well as those of other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house.
The minister has something in common with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). He has written a book. It is a book upon which I do not intend to go into detail on this occasion.


Maurice Lamontagne: Have you read it?


John George Diefenbaker: I have read it, and carefully studied it. I am glad he wrote a book because, Mr. Speaker, it is just as true today as when it was said originally, that the last thing a person going into politics should do is to write a book. I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is one of those who will agree with that aphorism. I also recall that the minister was one of those who gave to that meeting in Queen's University in 1960 something of the philosophy upon which the Liberal party has since operated, a philosophy that is in strong contradistinction to the basic tenets of that party. I intend to refer to

that study conference later, and compare the theories of that day in 1960 with the practical events of 1963.
In so far as the general objectives of the bill are concerned, when speaking on the resolution I stated that we agreed therewith, while at the same time not being dedicated to the principles of planning as enunciated a few minutes ago by the hon. gentleman in the detail and to the degree to which he gives his allegiance. An examination of the bill indicates that it is a catch-all. It has in it, almost verbatim, a portion of the productivity council bill. Then, it borrowed as well in extenso from Bill No. C-87 which was introduced by the former government on November 28, 1962, an act to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board. In addition to that, there are some further elements to which we do not give the same support as does the hon. gentleman. We will examine the purpose of the bill because, even a casual reading of this bill indicates that it is another in the series of shotgun legislation with which this government has become identified.
Even in the short time the government has existed there has been a policy of marrying in haste and repenting at leisure. This has been characteristic of these 60 days, and the additional days since. The outstanding example, of course, was the blunder budget. I am not going into detail in that connection because of course that would be improper, Mr. Speaker, but it is all part of the picture; it is all part of the general plan. All of these things when taken together represent something of the philosophy that the hon. gentleman gave to the Liberal party in 1960.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I wonder if I might interrupt the hon. gentleman? It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper in accordance with the special order of July 10.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we proceed to this order, I wonder if I might be permitted to remind all hon. members that under the order made yesterday we meet again at seven o'clock? I feel that otherwise some hon. members might forget and we might have difficulty in proceeding.


John George Diefenbaker: They seem to have forgotten we are meeting this afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree.


Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house to give unanimous consent to considering third readings for the private bills that were reported earlier this afternoon from the banking and commerce committee, upon the understanding
Private Bills
that if debate develops on any one of these bills, it would stand until the next private members' hour. I do this because of the fact that the number of private members' hours has been reduced to one a week, and it is desirable that we get these bills through.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-27, to incorporate Kinross Mortgage Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been passed by the other place, at which time it was debated and examined by the standing committee on banking and commerce. The references to the debates in the other place, if I may insert them for the benefit of hon. members are, in the present session, on June 26 at page 163; June 27, pages 169 to 170; July 3 page 185, and July 9 page 205.
The persons named for the purposes of incorporating this company and as provisional directors are all Canadian citizens. The capital to be subscribed for the company is Canadian capital. It is the intention to seek a charter by act of parliament which would be consistent with the Loan Companies Act, chapter 170 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. The proposed outline of the charter is very simple, following the format recommended by the Loan Companies Act in the appendix.
The company intends to carry on business making loans on first mortgages and other securities, in the province of Ontario initially. If it extends its business into the province of Quebec I have been assured it is the intention to provide for bilingual representation on the board of directors.
The sum of $500,000 in terms of the charter will be subscribed before the first general meeting takes place, and the sum of $1 million subscribed of which $500,000 shall have been paid before the company can undertake to carry on business. The superintendent of insurance has been informed and has had the opportunity of informing himself concerning the operations of the company. He will be available at the committee hearings, which I understand will be the procedure following second reading.
This is a new venture and it is not intended to take over any existing company. At the present time there is no intention to make any public stock offering, and there is no intention to accept public deposits, although I understand the Loan Companies Act would give such authority. At committee stage there

Private Bills
would be an opportunity for hon. members to ask questions, and in the committee on banking and commerce the superintendent of insurance will be called as a witness to give further information.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-17, respecting Chartered Trust Company-Mr. Wahn-Mr. Mackasey in the chair.
On clause 1-Repeal.
William Arnold Peters: Would the sponsor of the bill give us an indication regarding the composition of the board of directors in relation to their citizenship?


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Chairman, I understood that these bills were brought on, on condition that there would be no debate. I think the undertaking was that if debate did develop we would stand them until the next sitting of the house, but I can assure the hon. member that this is a Canadian company and if not all, certainly the majority of the officers and directors, are Canadian.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-10, respecting The Great-West Life Assurance Company-Mrs. Konantz-Mr. Mackasey in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On the preamble.
William Arnold Peters: Before the preamble carries I would like to ask the same question. Is the sponsor in a position to indicate in this case the composition of the board of directors and whether or not they are Canadians?


Mrs. Konantz:: There is a board of 18, of whom, 17 are Canadians and one American.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-9, respecting Confederation Life Association- Mr. Wahn.-Mr. Mackasey in the chair.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Existing rights saved.
William Arnold Peters: In connection with clause 3, Mr. Chairman, could I ask whether the sponsor of the bill is in a position to tell the committee the composition of the board of directors.


Ian Grant Wahn: Certainly, Mr. Chairman; the majority of officers and directors of the company would be Canadian.


William Arnold Peters: I was not asking about the majority; I was wondering whether they would all be Canadians.


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Chairman, I gave this specific information to the house when the bill was at second reading stage. At the moment I do not have the list in front of me, but certainly they are practically all Canadians.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill S-14, respecting Canada Permanent Toronto General Trust Company-Mr. Wahn-Mr. Mackasey in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Mackasey):: would inform the committee that clause 1 of this bill was amended in the banking and commerce committee. Shall the clause as amended carry?
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. C-17, to amend the Railway Act (the public's royalties in abandoned railways)-Mr. Ormiston.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have certain remarks on the admissibility of this bill which I would like to give the house now. The purpose of this bill is to delete from the general powers of railway companies the power to "alienate, sell or dispose of, any lands or property of the company that for any reason have become not necessary for the purpose of the railway". In other words, according to the explanatory note:
The purpose ... is to emphasize ... that abandoned railway lands and the property thereon are royalties accruing to the public and not to the railway company's shareholders.

According to section 16 of the Canadian National Railways Act, chapter 29 of the statutes of 1955, the provisions of the Railway Act apply to the national company. There is no doubt that if this amendment were adopted it would prejudicially affect the assets and revenues of Canadian National Railways. Furthermore it would increase the annual deficit of the Canadian National Railways for which parliament has to provide.
For the above reasons it is a money bill and cannot be introduced by a private member, according to the provisions of the British North America Act and of the standing orders of the house. On May 9, 1933 it was decided by Mr. Speaker Black that an amendment involving an expenditure to be incurred by the Canadian National Railways is out of order because the railway is owned by the government. See Beauchesne's third edition, page 497. Mr. Speaker ruled the proposed amendment out of order on the grounds that it involved an expenditure of public moneys and could only be moved by a minister on the recommendation of the crown. From this ruling there was an appeal, and the question being put: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained; it was decided in the affirmative.
Accordingly, I believe this bill to be in the nature of a money bill and I declare it to be out of order.


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with the utmost respect for both Your Honour and your office, I regret that I must make the following observations. The only purpose of this bill is to remove from the Railway Act a section that is ultra vires as infringing provincial property and civil rights. I refer to the opinion of the deputy minister of justice which is set out in the explanatory notes to the bill.
To argue that this is a money bill begs the question, for to hold that this bill involves the expenditure of money or puts a charge upon the people is to give a prior constitutional decision and legal opinion that the present section 164 (1) (c) is valid, because if section 164 (1) (c) is invalid and therefore of no legal force and effect, this bill, by repealing that ineffective and void section, cannot cause any effect except-as put in the explanatory notes-to remove a provision that misleads as to the respective rights of federal government, provincial governments, railways and private citizens. Authorities which hold that the Chair will not decide a constitutional question nor give a legal opinion are set out in Bourinot, fourth edition at page 180 and repeated in Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 61, citation 71 (5).
28902-5-134
Proposed Parliamentary Commissioner


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the hon. member for his most interesting, even learned and constructive remarks, but his comments were made on a point of order after a decision had been given and in consequence I am afraid we have to take the next order of business.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-19, an act to establish the office of parliamentary commissioner.-Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Speaker:: Once again I hope hon. members will permit me to make a few remarks as to the admissibility of this bill.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I
rise on a point of order? If Your Honour proposes to read out a decision ruling this bill out of order would you not hear observations on the subject before you make your ruling so that you will not be placed in a position of having to disregard any submissions which may be made to you later.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. Of course, the Chair is only trying to fullfil its duty in endeavouring to make sure that these bills are in order. The Chair would certainly welcome any comments at this time.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: With regard to the point Your Honour has raised and your reference to this bill being out of order-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member? I have not given any opinion yet. I did not say it was in order or out of order.


Robert Norman Thompson: I was a little apprehensive that the same thing might happen in this case as happened in the case of the previous bill. This has been carefully studied with the thought that it could be brought within the regulations of standing orders of this house. Basically, it is similar to Bill C-98, which was on the order paper last year, but which never came up for debate. In drawing up the bill I have been careful to avoid providing for the expenditure of public money. According to clause 3, the person to fill the office of parliamentary commissioner would be chosen from among the senior officials of the Department of Justice and for the purpose of pay and allowances he would be treated in the same manner as if he continued to be an officer of the Department of Justice.
This was not done in a corner. We consulted a number of people who are authorities on this subject, including the parliamentary law officers and your two immediate

Proposed Parliamentary Commissioner predecessors as Speakers of the house, in an effort to ensure that we were not running contrary to any rules. My respectful submission at this time, therefore, is that the bill comes within the rules and I believe we should consider it in that light.
The office of parliamentary commissioner is an important one and I think the people of Canada are looking forward to its establishment. The setting up of a position similar to that occupied by an ombudsman, as he is known in the Scandinavian countries, will be welcomed by a large section of the public. Prominent individuals have been increasingly concerned about bureaucracy and the tendency of centralized authority to move in on the rights of individuals. I would appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to say that this bill is entirely within the rules of the house and should be regarded as in order.
In case this should not be your decision, I would at this time move the second reading of this measure.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. gentleman that he has discussed the content of this bill, though it has not yet been moved. I understood he intended to raise a point of order. I think there should be an opportunity for hon. members to express themselves but if the hon. member for Greenwood is rising on a point of order, would he please stick to the point of order?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I shall be addressing myself entirely to the point of order. I have heard it suggested that this bill will be ruled out of order because it is said to involve the expenditure of public funds. It is my respectful submission that it may, in fact, be defective because it does not propose to spend public funds. It proposes to place the task of filling this post of parliamentary commissioner on the shoulders of an existing official of the Department of Justice. It does not involve the expenditure of a single additional cent of money.
I notice that according to citation 366 of Beauchesne the introduction of a bill establishing additional staff in a branch of the civil service was prevented by the Speaker. I would respectfully point out that the emphasis in that citation falls upon the word "additional". Here, all that is done is to ask the existing staff to accept an additional duty. This does not involve any additional money. There may be a little postage to pay but the measure itself provides that those who have grievances should pay a fee of $5.00 which would, surely, cover such incidental expenses. The duties of the commissioner would be, among other things, to make inquiries from other government officials and to look into certain matters. This

is already part of the functions of the Department of Justice, in my submission. In my view, although one might wish to criticize particular parts of the act itself, this legislation is in order as well as being of great interest to many sections of the house and of the country generally.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: I should like to speak on this point of order and particularly with reference to the remark made by the hon. member for Greenwood. He has referred to citation 366 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. I should like to go further and refer the house to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Casgrain referred to in that paragraph. The bill in question was one similar to the bill the admissibility of which we are now discussing. The mover of this bill proposes that a certain official or officials of one department should be transferred to another post. The ruling of the Speaker on this earlier occasion might be summarized under two headings: first, whether or not existing staff continuing to be used in the service, but being shifted to an additional function would, as a practical necessity, require the expenditure of additional public funds, it being understood that where extra funds are needed parliament should specifically provide for them. The second ground on which the Speaker of that day ruled against the bill could most expeditiously be put forward by reading from the ruling itself. I am reading from the House of Commons Journals for Friday, February 21, 1936 at page 62:
Another element which places this measure in the category of money bills is that its adoption would mean the transfer of the authority under which appropriated money is to be spent. The translators' salaries have been voted as part of the estimates of the Secretary of State's department. This was done by resolution in committee of supply and it was subsequently embodied in the appropriation bill. When money is voted, the main conditions imposed on its expenditure are embodied in resolutions. All the circumstances concerning its destination form part of the appropriation with which they are considered and if any alteration is to be made it must be by the same process as the original resolution.
A money bill is defined in the British house as a public bill which contains only provisions dealing with inter alia the "custody" of public money. The custody is undoubtedly the placing of an appropriation under a certain minister.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that what the hon. member for Red Deer is proposing is that the expenditure which has been authorized under the Department of Justice should be transferred out of that department and be dealt with in accordance with the appropriation resolutions concerning the House of Commons, and that would be contrary to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Casgrain.

For that reason, I submit that Your Honour should rule against the propriety of this bill.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order I should like to reply briefly to the argument, as I see it, of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). Apparently he would indicate to the house that if personnel or an entire department is transferred to another department it does not constitute the hiring of additional help. It may however leave a gap in the old department and they will have to hire more help. If this can be done, then I suggest that an entire department could be washed up and transferred to some other department.
I have been faced here with a problem. I have sat in this house and listened very carefully to development boards being set up hither, thither and yon to help develop areas of the country, and I have striven hard to fashion some way in which an economic development board could be set up for the riding of South Renfrew with several hundred million dollars granted to it. This might be a constitutional way of doing it. If Your Honour rules that this is in order, we might direct some other department to be in charge of an economic board for South Renfrew.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit to you that as recent as Tuesday last we have precedents for ruling this bill in order. For example, on that day we had second reading of Bill No. C-16 which proposed the setting up of a veterinary college in western Canada by the federal government. If this bill is passed it will involve an expenditure of several million dollars to be borne by the federal government. So it would certainly appear that, indirectly, that bill would have been out of order on the basis that it may involve government expenditure.
I also submit for Your Honour's consideration the fact that almost all the private bills listed on the order paper would indirectly involve some additional expenditure. Because if you are going to use the argument that it imposes additional responsibility on a department, and thus additional activity and perhaps expenditure, as a basis for ruling that a private member cannot sponsor a public bill, I submit we will have to strip the order paper of almost every bill on it. I think this has not been the practice in the past. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you to consider the fact that we discussed only the day before yesterday a bill which, if it had passed, would have involved the expenditure of several million dollars. While there is a 28902-5-134J
11, 1363	2093
Proposed Parliamentary Commissioner possibility that some indirect expense will be involved, I submit that this bill is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other hon. members who would like to express an opinion? If not, the matter is not too easy to decide, and hon. members will realize that I am trying to carry out my constitutional function and duty. Therefore I have an opinion on this particular bill which I should like to give at this moment.
On the order for the second reading of a somewhat similar bill, namely a bill to establish the office of parliamentary proctor, etc.; on April 6, 1962, Mr. Speaker Michener said, among other things, as reported on page 2597 of Hansard:
Before calling on the hon. member or recognizing the hon. member, may I say that I feel it to be my duty to draw the attention of the house to the fact that this bill has some of the characteristics of a money bill, or one that requires a resolution. I therefore feel that if the debate proceeds I should at least indicate the possible difficulties with a bill of this kind so that it will not be taken as a firm precedent for similar legislation.
It is true that the present bill is somewhat different, more particularly in that it does not provide directly for the payment of a salary for the parliamentary commissioner or his staff. On the contrary it states in clause 3 that:
The parliamentary commissioner shall be chosen among the senior law officers of the Department of Justice-
-etc. As to the staff, clause 6 is to the effect that:
The parliamentary commissioner may from time to time obtain the services of such officers and employees of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Department of Justice-
-etc.
From this it may be deducted, first, that there will be transfers from one department to the other; second, that it is quite probable that the officers so appointed will have to be replaced by others; and third, that a new office or branch will be created.
I am of the opinion that this bill is a money bill and for that reason it cannot be introduced by a private member. It is inconceivable that the numerous duties of parliamentary commissioner as suggested in the bill could be assumed without an expenditure of money. The officers transferred from other departments will have to be paid, probably at an increased rate of pay. They will have to be replaced in the departments from which they have been transferred by new employees, thus creating a number of new employees.
On May 17, 1918 Mr. Speaker Rhodes decided that a motion to amend a bill to

Proposed Parliamentary Commissioner provide for the appointment of additional government officials was out of order as it involved an increased grant of public money. This is found in Beauchesne's third edition, page 439.
On the same date the Speaker also ruled that an amendment proposing to increase the membership of a government paid board involved an expenditure and cannot be moved by a private member. The reference here is Beauchesne's third edition, page 475.
On March 2, 1927, Mr. Speaker Lemieux ruled that a bill to create a new department of the government was out of order because it was not introduced by a minister of the crown with a recommendation of the governor general. The reference is Beauchesne's third edition, page 475.
On February 21, 1936, Mr. Speaker Cas-grain decided that a bill providing for the transfer of a government service from one department to another involves the custody of public moneys and cannot be introduced by a private member. The reference here is Beauchesne's third edition, page 478. In the course of rendering the above decision the Speaker stated, inter alia:
Another element which places this measure in the category of money bills is that its adoption would mean the transfer of the authority under which appropriated money is to be spent.
And further:
When money is voted, the main conditions imposed on its expenditure are embodied in resolutions. All the circumstances concerning its destination form a part of the appropriation with which they are considered and if any alteration is to be made it must be by the same process as the original resolution.
And still further:
-the circumstances under which an expenditure is to be made are indivisible from that expenditure. The choice of the minister responsible for paying out the money is a material condition of an appropriation, and in order to change it the house would have to amend the principal clauses of a money bill.
To conclude with the words of Speaker Casgrain in this last decision, with which I agree, he said:
I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed measure has all the earmarks of a money bill and cannot be introduced by a private member. I declare it out of order.
That is the end of the quotation from Speaker Casgrain with which, I regret to say, I must agree.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the jeopardy in which all public bills moved by private members are placed I do, with great regret, appeal the ruling you have just made.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair from which the hon. member for Red Deer has appealed to the

house. All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: This is an appeal to this house from the ruling of the Chair which is
as follows:	__
On the order for second reading of Bill No. C-19, an act to establish the office of parliamentary commissioner, the Chair ruled to the effect that as the bill contained money provisions it could not be introduced or proceeded with by a private member, whereupon the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The house resumed at 7 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lamontagne for the second reading of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of an economic council of Canada.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is rather a novelty to be starting at 7 o'clock. Personally I believe that if this could be secured by general consent, it might be a very good idea. As a matter of fact, in the United Kingdom parliament, as you know, they sit
Economic Council of Canada between six and eight o'clock. They have an unwritten law to the effect that during this period of time votes are not called nor shall divisions take place. I have often felt that if we were to increase the time of sitting earlier in the session than is the customary wont, a great deal of time would be saved and parliament made more effective.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that I have the support of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) perhaps something will be done in this regard. But speaking seriously, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to do what we can, by agreement among the various parties of the house, to bring about the highest possible standard of procedure to the end that this institution shall be able fully and properly to discharge its function.
At five o'clock I was dealing in general with the philosophy of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne). I mentioned earlier that I had made a study of his work and also of his speeches. I may be giving him credit to which he is not entitled but, sir, I believe that the philosophy of the new Liberalism had its beginnings, its generation and its birth in the heart of the hon. gentleman. I listened to his words today. He dealt with the need for bolder and more dynamic action, for selective policies and the need for not being antagonistic to planning. The question of guiding, directing or compelling the economic system to produce results regarded as desirable has agitated political discussion for many, many years. Having regard to the personnel of the present government I think it can be fairly said that this government is a planners' government; it is committed to directing the economic life of the country. Indeed, the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) in her very able speech at the opening of this session indicated that the Liberal party, or at least most members within that party, are prepared to accept this growth toward a collectivist society. The hon. member, further, accepted the argument that such a society does require direction and guidance from the main institutions.
No one can argue that the sense of directive planning is not of the essence of any government. But as I read the philosophy enunciated and expounded by the President of the Privy Council I believe he has a belief in planning, a belief in its intrinsic worth, that transcends that of any other hon. member in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the hon. gentlemen down there?

Economic Council of Canada


John George Diefenbaker: As far as our hon, friends of the New Democratic party are concerned, they are out in left field in that regard. Hon. gentlemen opposite have swallowed the doctrines of those in the New Democratic party while pretending to not having done so. One has just to look-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now we know how Jonah felt.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; he came out all right. It only took him three days, but at the rate this government is going that is about the same length of time it has taken the Canadian people to realize where planning will take them, unless the planning is properly planned. As I peruse the views expressed by the hon. gentleman I think this is a general philosophy of his; he belongs to the group that believes all problems can be resolved simply by referring them to a group of planners. His philosophy leaves little leeway for private initiative and enterprise.
This afternoon the hon. gentleman talked of collective action. That is a phrase beloved by the planners. I mentioned earlier the reference to a collectivist society. In the philosophy of the Liberal party planners this bill, in part adopted, the good parts of it, from our philosophy and our legislation, has added to it some portions, to which direct reference will be made when we are in committee, which represent a philosophy that we cannot accept.
The hon. gentleman seems to believe that all that is necessary is bold action; that our problems will be solved as long as a government is doing something. We have had quite a bit of experience in the last few weeks-


Mr. Winch:: Not the last six years.


John George Diefenbaker: -that they think as long as a government is doing something, right or wrong, it represents forward action. The hon. gentleman seems to accept the proposition that through planners, and only through planners, can we foresee and solve problems. Well, all I can tell him is this, that his fellow member of the cabinet, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) only the other day was able to say, when he participated in that great retreat, that in effect the complexity of modern business, and therefore the complexity of modern taxation has made it increasingly difficult for governments to see all the administrative problems and the consequences of tax changes. It is not only the legislation that you have to look at; it is the philosophy of those who will implement that legislation.
The hon. gentleman said that this legislation, or no part of it, will be compulsive or coercive; it is to be entirely persuasive; and no doubt it was very comforting for

business across Canada, small and large, to learn today from his lips that he did not intend to invoke compulsion. This is a picture of the planner. He called for audacious direction of the economy by government. Didn't we have a wonderful example of that in the budget? That was audacious, but it turned out to be one of the most colossal flops in all history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The planners knew when the troika met with the Minister of Finance that they had a plan. They kept it to themselves. It was not revealed till finally it came before parliament, and business across Canada and the economy as a whole is still reeling from the audacious direction imparted by his colleague the Minister of Finance. That was only in the tax field. The hon. gentleman is going into the entire field; he is going beyond taxation.
Sir, I am going to refer for a moment to the general philosophy which seems to be inherent in the thinking of this government. I cannot understand the application of that philosophy. The Minister of Finance said he wanted price stability, more investment and expanded production. There was planning: They planned and did not realize the consequences of what they were planning. They planned that as an objective; and that is the objective of this legislation. At the same time they turned around and slapped a prohibitive tax on the pursuit of these objectives. Sir, the budget is part of this great plan, the five-sided plan. One would have thought that the Liberal party's flirtation with the grandiose scheme for a planned economy would go with the bright young men to the places in which they were before they came here.
The hon. gentleman comes along with his plan. I mentioned this afternoon that I had done some reading so that I would understand his philosophy, because I am frank to say immediately that the hon. gentleman is sincere in what he contends. This represents to him the epitome, the necessity of any government today. Indeed, reading over the speech delivered at the study conference on national problems on September 7, 1960, one can only come to the conclusion that the cookbook from which the Pearson government is borrowing many of its economic ideas and recipes for directing and controlling the Canadian economy is the lengthy paper that he placed before that group. His main thesis is, "The government needs more machinery for economic research". His argument, in effect, is that there is nothing wrong with Canada that cannot be cured by a bigger bureaucracy. That is the philosophy; that philosophy he enunciated in detail.

Sir, as one reads what he said and what he wrote there is revealed between the lines a desire tor centralization, a distrust of private enterprise. Indeed, what is hoped for is public planning and control. He points out the danger of private initiative.


Maurice Lamontagne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I certainly never said that I was advocating public controls.


An hon. Member:: That is no point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the hon. gentleman interrupting me at any time, because I am just coming to a conclusion based upon what he says. I may be giving it an interpretation that possibly does not appeal to him, but it is one that seems clear from what he said. He talks of full employment. What is full employment?


An hon. Member:: We did not know while you were in power.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman has not read what his mentor and philosopher, the President of the Privy Council, has said in this regard. What is full employment? He would allow 3 per cent of the labour force to be out of work. That would mean that approximately 200,000 people would be the normal number out of work. What is real growth? Well, he would allow not less than 5 per cent per annum. Without the planning we had 8 per cent last year.


Maurice Lamontagne: What about the four previous years?


John George Diefenbaker: We were just recovering from the mess into which the hon. gentlemen put our economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I welcome any such interruptions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I notice that the right hon. gentleman-


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. gentleman sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -is very brave until his challenges are accepted.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor and should not be interrupted unless he is willing to answer a question.
Economic Council of Canada


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, any time the garrulous Secretary of State frightens me there will be another sun in the sky.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. gentleman answer my question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the right hon.
gentleman permit me to ask him a question?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: My understanding is that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has the floor. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) may ask a question if he wants to, but the Leader of the Opposition, who has the floor, may refuse to answer it.


John George Diefenbaker: We are getting so in this house, Mr. Speaker, that no matter what comes up the Secretary of State takes the floor. He loves the sound of his own voice. I will be glad to answer any questions at the conclusion of my remarks, but these aimless interruptions, designed to interfere with the argument-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when you throw a stone you always know which one it hits from where the howls come from.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You can tell from the crying.


John George Diefenbaker: No self-identification.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman said something about self-identification. I have never cried. I have never complained about being howled down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that there was no question of privilege at this point. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume the substance of his speech.


John George Diefenbaker: Never in my life, Mr. Speaker, have I known so many interruptions when a person is engaged in reviewing a book. And the Secretary of State is an author too. Now may I continue. I mentioned the real growth of the economy. Then according to this speech in 1960 another question was: What are stable prices? The hon. gentlemen would allow a fluctuation of around 1 per cent. Then he deals with the philosophy of Maynard Keynes and comes to the conclusion that Keynes really could not prescribe for the present generation. He

Economic Council of Canada comes to the conclusion that we need policies which can start and stop quickly, or even be reversed. Well, that is interesting; I page the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in that connection.
I mentioned earlier the book "Evolution and Problems, 1954". Does that not set forth in some detail a tightly centralized Canada?


Maurice Lamontagne: What is the title of the book?


John George Diefenbaker: He says it needs an economic research council to tell us what is wanted in our economic system. He asks for the setting up inside the government of an advisory board on economic development and stability to advise the government and private business. He believes that such a board if set up could put an inefficient and irresponsible government, as he says, on the spot. I make no observation on that; I do not know whether they have set up that committee yet.
With regard to private enterprise, he concludes from what is happening that it needs direction. This is my conclusion from reading what he says. He says that production is being misdirected by private enterprise, which may rely on advertising to create its market, which may concentrate the public attention on low priority wants when it should be interested in other things, and which may neglect other important objectives. This is the philosophy, sir. "He who runs may read". This is the philosophy behind the planning upon which this government has embarked. He says that Canada should develop its secondary industry, and certainly it should. Then he goes on to say that this should not be done by encouraging small manufacturing behind a wall of protection; that such industry should engage in competition on a wider scale. Then he says this of a government interested in small business:
This may involve a smaller number of larger units in each industry.
What happens to small business? What happens to the little business places in all of our towns and cities?
Then he goes on to deal with the north, because he covers everything. He deals with the opening up of the north. He does not rely much on developing the north. While the Canadian north will undoubtedly play an important role in the Canadian economy, he says, the huge private and public investment required to open up this vast economic frontier will make a much greater contribution to general welfare if it is used for the time being in the more settled parts of the country. This, sir, is the philosophy. He goes on to say that in order to keep prices properly in line under the selective fiscal policies which


are advocated, business and agriculture should meet at an annual conference at which objectives would be explained and the sense of social responsibility developed to discourage conflicts, such as labour pressure for higher wages, when such increases are not in the public interest.
This, Mr. Speaker, is an amazing document: it is frank, comprehensive and far-seeing, from the point of view of the hon. gentleman who wrote it. He says that we should learn to use new tools of economic policy. From a reading, even a perusal, of the two documents to which I refer, hon. members of this house will get an understanding of the philosophy which activates this government.
This measure cannot be considered in isolation; it is one of a great panorama planned for three long years in every detail. This measure must be viewed in the light of the other measures which have been introduced. The declaration of purpose is to stimulate the economy in order to provide jobs, and there are elements in it which are deserving of the widest possible support, for anything that can be done in that direction deserves the consideration and approval of parliament. But I find it difficult to understand the objective in question alongside the tax on building materials and new machinery. One naturally wonders how much of the economy will be left to stimulate, by the time some of these other measures start to function. The council will be set up and asked to do its work on the basis of a budget that is all but vanished, with some parts of the rest of it unworkable or meaningless. This measure cannot be separated from the other measures, for they create the atmosphere in which the national economic council is being set up. By way of example, what manner of thinking brought about the suggestion of a $500 bonus on winter-built homes? When it was announced, every person owning a home in Canada had in effect $500 less value for his own home and had to provide the taxes so that someone else could get $500. What an army of inspectors it is going to take to go out in December to inspect the sites and to go out in March to see whether or not the conditions have been fulfilled. It will provide a nightmare of bureaucratic confusion. What about the plan to pay one half the salary up to $150 per month of workers over 45 years of age who are hired? It puts a limitation on wages for everyone. The planners planned, but they did not think ahead. All of this, as I say, is part of the same picture.
The municipal loan fund was launched with tremendous fanfare. We do not know where it is. Questions were asked today. It is going to come up. It went off in the blue. We have

not heard much of it since. It was sighted over Quebec yesterday. That is all we know about it. In fact, it was sighted in the Quebec legislature just this morning when the premier of Quebec termed this legislation a breach of promise by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Is that legislation still in orbit, because it is part and parcel of this economic planning?
With respect to the legislation before us to set up a board with similar powers to those provided in Bill No. C-87 introduced last November, we give it our support. In part it is a duplication of that bill. I make it clear that in so far as it consists of a duplication of that bill and of the National Productivity Council Act we naturally give it support. But it has other things in it, and I am only going to point out one on this occasion. It has in it a provision that indicates how the budget is interlocked with the establishment of an economic council for Canada. The clause is an omnibus one, and it has to do with the fostering of plans for economic development by way of studying means of increasing Canadian participation in the ownership, control and management of industries in Canada.
The government have determined on the course. They made a frightful mess of their planning in this connection. The 30 per cent tax went with the birds and the truth squad. The other day there was a further change, and yet in the face of the planning that has been done provision is made in this bill that the board is to study means of increasing Canadian participation. I suggest that when they set up a board for this purpose, among other things, they have determined on the course they are going to take before it is set up. The board is also to study the potentialities of growth and the like, and to explore and evaluate particular projects of major significance. Those are desirable objectives and with those objectives we are in agreement.
However, sir, in this legislation there are quite a number of clauses that invade provincial jurisdiction and constitute an interference with the constitutional rights of the provinces. All during the election campaign and prior thereto it was said that before the municipal loans plan was brought in the provinces would be consulted. That was the undertaking. When the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) was Minister of Labour he brought in the winter works program. He received widespread support for it because he consulted with the other levels of government before bringing it in.
Within the ambit of the bill now before us there are various elements of intrusion into the provincial arena, and I think there should have been consultation. I know it has been suggested that after some of this legislation
Economic Council of Canada has been passed by parliament the provinces are going to be consulted. That is not consultation. Consultation consists in taking the counsel of these various levels of government before legislation is passed.
Indeed, I think we should endeavour to bring about in our federal-provincial relations new vistas of consultation. During the period that the government of which I had the honour to be the head was in office we brought about a system. I do not say it was perfect but it was a workable solution to many of the problems of a federal state. I think we will have to establish something in the nature of a general course of conduct so that we will not forever be fighting the battles of federal-provincial jurisdiction and the like. We did that in connection with the resource ministers council. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) convened a conference on the subject of resources for tomorrow. Out of that conference came the resource ministers council. During the discussions and consultations a minister from each of the provinces took part in a study of what each province was doing, and a program was worked out which could be recommended to all the governments. It provided for a secretariat which is responsible to no one government, but to a committee set up by the resource ministers themselves.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) has a resolution on the order paper, and while I am not saying I agree with it in its entirety it does have elements in it that are necessary to be imparted into any arrangements to assure continuing consultation with the provinces.
As a result of the resource ministers council being formed they have worked out problems in co-operation. They have been able to bring about agreement. The president of the council at the present time is the Hon. Rene Levesque. The presidency changes regularly. As we are trying to make the constitution more workable and more effective, all of which is dependant on consultation, I think we have to work out under our system a general plan of operation. The technique that we evolved was not, as I said, perfect. It was the result of trial, error and experiment, but I think we evolved a system whereby federal concepts make possible co-operative planning of admirable programs in all fields, as has been done in the resource field. We did that too in the Department of Agriculture, under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
I mention this as an aside, and as a digression, that we must do all we can to set up some form of flexible machinery which will permit the functioning of full co-operation and consultation between the federal and provincial governments. I am concerned over

Economic Council of Canada what is happening in connection with the municipal loan fund. The spirit of co-operation that was built up between the two levels of government by the means I have already mentioned has been seriously diminished in consequence of the action of the present government in proceeding with legislation, however admirable, without the fullest consultation and consideration.
Having said that, sir, I want to point out that except for one or two particulars to which I have alluded, the principle in general that is followed here is in no way new. We had it in our legislation, in the bill to which I have already referred, to establish a national economic development board. The Liberal party, in the House of Commons, said it agreed with the plan, and then proceeded for seven days to talk about it. We spent two days on the resolution stage and five days on second reading and in committee of the whole. Finally, with dissolution, it ended. They said they believed in the principles. They accepted our idea for directional planning without coercion or compulsion, and unaccompanied by the philosophy of coercion that seems to be characteristic of this government. At the same time, they opposed the measure day after day.
It is very interesting to look back and to find that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) said they agreed with what was being done. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) agreed in general with it, and then proceeded to advance many arguments to show that it would not be operative. At page 819 of Hansard, for October 22, 1962 he uttered these immortal words:
We need a government which is not afraid of taking positive action; a government which knows what it would do.
They took action, all right, under their budgetary plans; then in panic they threw them overboard, not all at once but one by one. They referred to a government which knew what it would do. But what is more important is a government which knows what it wants to do and, having decided it, stays with it. We do not know what the next step is. We have not got the legislation. I believe there are many people across Canada who, in view of the representations being made now, expect a few more of the principles which were the cornerstones of the new economy building in this country will be thrown overboard between now and the enactment of legislation.
The creation of a national economic development council, as I said a moment ago, is not new. We provided for that, and we provided for a national productivity council. However, when the present Minister of Finance was speaking, he contended that what we were doing in that legislation was setting


up a board which would emasculate the national productivity council. This was the criticism he made last fall. Now, they are throwing the national productivity council overboard by placing at least some of its principles with this board.
In the United Kingdom, sir, an economic council was set up. I am not going into the particulars of it. However, I would point out that several reports have been made by the British national economic development council and they are well worth reading. One is a study of the growth rate in the United Kingdom economy to 1966, and it was published in April of this year. This is the type of planning to which no one can object. It is unaccompanied by the philosophy that planning is an end in itself, that the planners have some superior source of information or inspiration above ordinary human beings and they will tell you where you should go; that they know what is good for you. We have had enough of that kind of planning in the budget. The planning provided for under the national economic development council in the United Kingdom was on the basis that the economic growth rate, which was 2.2 per cent per year, should be increased to a growth rate of 4 per cent where possible by 1966.
They said the United Kingdom has ample scientific trained personnel; that industry will have to be more efficient. As the hon. gentleman said this afternoon there must be a heavier and more rapid investment in industrial capacity. The report from the United Kingdom deals with the deficit in the balance of payments, and indicates that exports will have to be increased sharply; consumer expenditures will have to be increased substantially; that government, management and trade unions will have to co-operate closely to achieve an annual increase in growth rate. Then, there is a further report that came out on June 6, "Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth".
In so far as the present bill is a counterpart of that which we introduced, and which was talked out, it receives our full and complete support. I mentioned a moment ago that I could not understand the incorporation in this bill of the provision that a study is to be made for increasing Canadian participation. Why did they not wait until they had recommendations? Why set up a national economic council, with a major portion of its power being this, and then act in advance? I think it can be said now that this is the kind of advice that may have saved the government from the perpetration of the terrible errors that characterized its earlier resolution in this regard.

In so far as the bill is concerned, when compared with the bill we introduced, we find that the bill we introduced provided for study and report. It would have co-operated with regional agencies in the field of economic study and planning. The present bill deletes the words "study and report", and substitutes "advise and recommend." The present board would have powers to promote and organize in order to secure economic growth, and will carry on its programs until they can be transferred to other departments or agencies. In so far as those powers are concerned, they come perilously close to the centralized planning backed by the power to compel and direct.
In reading this bill in its entirety, taking the whole picture envisaged in its concept, one can only conclude this: Whatever the minister said and however definitely and frankly he suggests that there will be no coercion, this board is designed plainly as an agency to promote a planners' paradise for the Canadian economy. It is skillfully worded. The hon. gentleman smiles. That was his philosophy in 1960; that was his philosophy when he wrote the book. However, Mr. Speaker, experience is a great teacher and it may well be that in the light of even the experience of the last three months the hon. gentleman has learned that theory is often difficult to translate into effective action.
I have mentioned the attitude of the opposition last fall. They said they accepted the bill and then proceeded to dissect it. They argued; they postponed, and discussion went on from day to day. We do not intend to do that. In so far as the bill is concerned in having the objectives of the bill that we placed before parliament, it will receive our full support, but when we come to deal with some of the paragraphs and clauses we shall point out their effect and endeavour to bring about a change.
As to the portion that is actually a prototype of the powers of the National Productivity Council Act, it will receive our support, although I feel free to say that bringing together production, automation and productivity all under one board is going to be very difficult. Our attitude will be to do everything we can to make the bill effective in its operation while assuring the supremacy of parliament in the decisions that are made by the board, while maintaining the constitutional rights of the provinces strictly and absolutely, and while at the same time being entirely opposed to anything in the nature of a planned economy, however estimable the planners may be.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to come directly to the bill before us which is concerned with setting up an economic council of Canada.
Economic Council of Canada In principle such an economic council is sound and it can serve a useful purpose. If it is set up properly it can be an effective instrument in reducing the severe tension existing among labour, management and government. However its success will depend largely on its terms of reference, and for this reason our debate at this time is most important.
There should be a national economic council to assist in maintaining the efficiency of the economy. I believe this is its basic purpose, and as such it must be an advisory group and not a policy making body.
Boards and councils are no panacea. As I read through this proposed legislation I can see that there is a possibility of real conflict with the work of the Atlantic development board. There are also some important points of similarity to last year's legislation which died on the order paper, and which we should examine closely.
Reading from an editorial in the Globe and Mail of June 11, 1963, written by Bruce Macdonald I find this:
Like the economic development board, the economic council is directed to make to the minister an annual report, which is to be tabled in parliament. Unlike the board, the council has no authority to publish certain special studies without the consent of the minister.
This is an important point which the article makes, and it goes on to say:
The only new feature in the bill relating to this question is laid down in these words: "The council shall, annually, prepare and cause to be published a review of medium and long term prospects and
problems."
While this may well be subject to interpretation, the council could well consider its freedom is sharply circumscribed by the lengthy list of subjects on which it is directed to report only to the government.
I believe a tone is indicated in this legislation which is dangerous, if the national economic council is to perform the functions which are urgently required at this time.
In many respects this bill overlaps and is similar to the legislation which set up the national productivity council and it, by the way, is being repealed by this bill, with the exception that there is a tendency to keep the control of the economic council in the hands of the government. This is not the type of thing which is needed if we are to assure ourselves that there will be that spirit of co-operation among labour, management and government which is necessary if the council is to accomplish its purpose.
There has been an aspect of the work of the national productivity council over the last couple of years which I believe is noteworthy, and which should be carried through in this legislation if the new economic council is to be of any real use.

Economic Council oj Canada
The national productivity council has taken the lead in setting up, or assisting in the setting up of provincial and local councils. This is an aspect of its work which is very important. If the new council is to replace the national productivity council then we must make note of this feature.
Reading from the report of an address made by H. George DeYoung, chairman of the national productivity council at the fourth national labour-management seminar at the University of Montreal on May 15, I find this:
From our very beginning it was also readily apparent to the council that the establishment of provincial and local councils was a necessity if our goal of aiding the economy by improving its competitive ability were to be effective. Because Canada is Canada, no Ottawa based group will ever solve problems in the various provinces unilaterally.
The problems are different, the people are more geographically oriented than nationally and our type of work must eventually be done on the job, in factory and office, and on the farm. While we have been working to remove the fundamental roadblocks on a national scale-those imposed by law- of statistic and measurement data lack, and the greatest one of the climate for labour-management-government co-operation, we have been building toward the time when the local council would be the headliner. Steps were undertaken quickly to review with the provincial governments and representatives of labour and management the need for such provincial organizations. We found, interestingly that Quebec was already moving and Indeed ahead of the rest of Canada in this aspect of forming a broadly based economic council. Action is also now under way to set up local councils in many industrial cities.
The formation of these productivity or economic councils in the provinces across Canada is proceeding well. Already, full formed councils are operational in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan-
And, since these words were spoken, in Alberta.
-while organizational efforts are at reasonably advanced stages in most of the other provinces. The success in the maritimes was advanced by the work of the Atlantic provinces economic council and is now highlighted by the signing of a management-labour manifesto of co-operation.
This quotation from the chairman of the national productivity council brings home to us the lesson that if the national economic council is to achieve its objectives it must not be too tightly controlled by the national government. It must extend its responsibility outward to both labour and management and to the provinces and the local areas as well. Otherwise we will have a repetition of the very thing which is happening now with regard to the municipal development and loan board. Here the central government has laid out the specifications and qualifications concerning the assistance which this particular legislation is meant to provide, but has run afoul of local autonomy and the local good will which is necessary if this project is to


succeed. The lesson brought home to us here is simply that the whole question of planning and of industrial development must be coordinated in order to prevent the economy from rushing off madly in all directions.
The planning that industry and business needs is orderly and practical encouragement to expand. In principle a businessman can plan better for himself than can a bureaucrat in Ottawa acting on his behalf. Federal responsibilities include the co-ordinating aspect based on principles which have just been enunciated and which will encourage provincial responsibility and respect of provincial autonomy and rights while at the same time bringing about the federal-provincial co-operation we must have if such a council as this is to succeed. No one would want to take power or authority away from the government. What we want to do here is to add the wisdom of the economic community to that of the government in the decision-making process.
This brings us to consultant government, and this is one of the reasons why the recent budget has resulted in failure-simply because there was not that consultation with, or consideration of, those to whom the legislation would apply. We have seen the results and this should bring home the important principle I am talking about.
The other day I came across a booklet which is a digest of the report of the labour-management-government mission to Europe sponsored by the national productivity council. On page 9, I read this:
At the national level the consultative function in economic development is carried out through joint councils or bodies whose members, particularly from labour and management, represent the major interest involved in the economic life of the country. They make recommendations concerning common objectives of economic and social policy and the means for achieving the agreed objectives. They have not only a voice in the formulation of government economic and social policy but they must share some responsibility for its successful implementation.
I see in this piece of legislation a number of danger points. I shall not go over them in detail at this time because we are talking about the general principle of the bill, but they must be gone over carefully point by point when we come to the committee stage of our discussions. In this regard I should like to refer to a speech by Mr. J. Claude Hebert made in Halifax a short time ago entitled, "How Labour, Management and Government in Europe have United for Economic Growth". In the course of the speech to the Nova Scotia branch of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Mr. Hebert said this:
I am also convinced, as I have said, of the need for consultative bodies at national, provincial and

local levels. The national productivity council was a good start. It should be expanded or a larger body formed which unites with the council to conduct national economic studies with full consultation between labour, management and government. This is what is proving so highly effective in Europe. Such studies must also be repeated at provincial level and we now see a number of provinces developing economic councils.
Representatives of employer organizations and representatives of official trade unions must sit together along with government, finance and other groups to study the problems hindering economic growth. I say this because I am convinced that the running of our economy is too important to be left to governments alone or to political parties. Management and labour must be brought in on national and provincial policy making. It is too easy for a government, or a department of government, to become a world unto itself. They are not to blame,-it is just human nature. It happens in companies where a special department can become isolated from the real needs of a company. Many of you may have experienced this. We must bring all those involved in the economy into consultation before basic decisions are made which affect our business life.
Because this is the principle which has been followed in countries such as Sweden, West Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium and Great Britain, we see that councils similar to that proposed in this piece of legislation have achieved effective and desirable results-something we have not yet achieved in this country. This is probably one of the basic reasons why we are faced with our present difficulties.
The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has been speaking about the tremendous expansion of growth that took place last year. We must consider in this the increase in prices, and other factors which do not represent true economic growth, and average the position out over the last four or five years. If hon. members do that they will find an entirely different picture-not even enough progress to keep up with the expanding population and rising prices. For this reason the terms of reference of this new body are extremely important.
I wish to make a few closing remarks which summarize the basic principles involved in such legislation as this, if it is to reach the objective which hon. members hope it will attain. First I believe this council must be truly consultative in its functions. This means that labour, management, and all other aspects of our economy must be consulted at the decision making stage by the government in order that the government can decide on the right policy to take. Second then, as far as possible, the council must be able to act apart from politics. Since it is designed to work with both management and labour, as well as with government; since it is intended to co-operate with provincial governments and local councils, it is important that it should have complete freedom to make its
Economic Council of Canada findings known. In this legislation there are several points which appear to me to be restrictive in this regard because the responsibility of this council is not to the government alone but to the economy in general. Third, we must recognize that during the last two years there has been a tremendous amount of sound, solid work done by the national productivity council. This must be taken into account and used and incorporated into the work of the council we are now discussing. The national productivity council has played an important part in changing the class war in industry to a situation of co-operation between industry and labour. This is something which we as politicians, finding ourselves enclosed by these walls for far too much of the time, do not properly understand. I think that in the last few years there has been a much higher degree of cooperation, good will, and productive planning between labour and industry than we have ever had before. We should give the national productivity council a good deal of the credit for this, as it has brought the different aspects of our economy together.
Then, last, a further point I wish to make concerns research. We in Canada have perhaps not been sufficiently concerned about the importance of research as it applies to industry and, indeed, to all aspects of our economy. It is necessary that work on such programs be continued and expanded.
Another aspect of this bill which has disturbed me is to be found in the latter part of the legislation and it concerns finance. I find that the minister places the responsibility for financing the national economic council more or less in the hands of the government alone. I wonder how many of us here, including members of the government, know how much money has been spent in the last year by the national productivity council. I find that for the last fiscal year it amounted to $400,894. Where did this come from? One hundred and fifty thousand dollars came from the statutory allotment provided for the council. One hundred thousand dollars or so was carried over from the previous year when the council was just getting going and did not spend the whole of its allotment. About $86,000 came to the council as donations from industry and labour. This is the kind of co-operation we need. Nevertheless the present legislation is preventing the development of a situation of this type. Finally, $83,000 of the council's income came from matching grants. There are, it is true, a few other miscellaneous sources of income which go to make up the total; but what is important here is the spirit of co-operation which these accounts reflect. Yet this bill

Economic Council of Canada actually eliminates the possibility of the kind of contribution which, in my view, is so necessary if this spirit of co-operation is to develop as it should.
It is therefore of great importance that the work of this economic council should be carried out on a continuing basis in collaboration with management and labour and other programs rather than that it should just evolve into a civil service operation. Good as such an operation might be, it would inevitably achieve only part of the end desired and certainly remove it far from its real objective.
This new council could be a sounding board for assessing how effectively other government programs operate or, indeed, a standard of comparison by which the programs of other governments such as provincial or local governments, in meeting the real needs which industry and labour encounter in their daily work can be assessed. Therefore, we give our wholehearted support to this legislation. There are weaknesses contained in it, but these can be discussed when we come to speak about the specific clauses involved. In principle this council has something which the economy of Canada needs- this is particularly true of the work that has been done by the national productivity council-provided it can be expanded and extended, as it needs to be at this time, and provided the basic principles to which I have referred are made the motivating force behind the council and its functions.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, following the previous speaker, who seemed to be above politics, I am going to try to get down to politics. This bill is-I know the minister who brought it in will forgive me for using a bit of a theological metaphor-hardly the bell, book and candle of the New Democratic party. But I notice he did give the blessing to this through a quotation from one of the letters of Pope John, in a religious sense. The New Democratic party economic theology has long dealt with, and our predecessors have certainly dealt with the idea of an economic council. The fact that this particular council is hardly, in its framework as specific in its responsibilities is no reason for our being destructive regarding it. We support the bill and we shall vote for it; but we are not hotly enthusiastic about it: you might say we are lukewarm.
I would like to say that with regard to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition I was almost bitterly disappointed in that, given the points that he made about the difficulties today, in any planning terms, in the need for provincial consultation; given the fact that he can point with a certain amount

of derision to Premier Lesage and the municipal development loan fund; given the fact he can point to that great economist, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and what has happened to him, with all those experts he brought in, the fact remains that the attempt the Leader of the Opposition seems to be involved in, is to somehow limn or detail the Liberal party, the present government, as being dedicated to some kind of bureaucratic planning that is going to menace the freedoms of this nation. This is a little bit too much to swallow. I am not saying this in defence of the government, but somehow we get almost the spectre that we have a Barry Goldwater or a Pat Walsh added to development in thinking on the part of the official opposition with regard to this kind of legislation, and this is really pushing it a bit far.
I would like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that he introduced some legislation that some of us, if we wanted to raise this particular kind of ghosts, could get quite excited and worried about. I think the Conservative government, if it has any legislative legacy that a historian a decade or two from now will be looking back and trying to gild a bit, it will probably be ARDA. Can you think of any more general measure that has ever been brought here to give more power and planning and spending authority, which is almost removed from parliament? It is a good piece of legislation, and I think it is developing very nicely. So that the leader of a party so proud of that piece of legislation and the good effects it promises to have, and has already had, raising this terrible spectre of this bureaucratic menace across the way, is hard to take.
The Leader of the Opposition comes from the prairies where more than a generation ago the farmers became fed up with the whole play of the free market and free prices in terms of the grain trade. So they organized through political pressure a move which led to the taking away of wheat from any free market. There is nothing more planned and controlled, as is evidenced by the questions which roll from this side of the house from our prairie friends, than the whole grain market in the west; and for their leader, given that kind of background, to start worrying about economic planning at this date is incomprehensible to me.
I can give an example from the former prime minister's own program where some kind of economic analysis should appeal to him. The Conservative party is very proud of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act which was passed a couple of years ago. This act has pumped millions of dollars into new construction, and one of the great arguments put forward by my Conservative

friends is that it gave a boost to the economy last year and things improved. When the minister of labour brought that legislation in he gave us an estimate of how much would be spent by the government on this project in ten years, and his economic analysis was so good that the federal government wound up, before the Conservatives went out of power, committing themselves in two and a half years to as much as they projected spending in ten years.
Some people may say that this shows what a wonderful measure it was, but surely it also shows how terribly badly off we are in terms of economic analysis. I was told the other day that the head of the economic research bureau of the Department of Labour happens to be a chartered accountant, and remembering what recently happened to another chartered accountant here, maybe that is the explanation for that poor analysis.
I should like to suggest that there is another way in which we can look at this economic council without raising all these terrible fears that this is a bureaucratic menace. The Glassco report-I know hon. members on the Conservative side have a certain amount of interest and even pride in this-in volume 3, in the section dealing with economic services, points out that the current level of expenditures can be described as modest, probably unduly so. That is referring to the economic analyses and the statistical services available to the federal government at the present time. The report goes on, in commenting on D.B.S.:
The highly concentrated organization of statistical operations of the public service reflects a deliberate policy decision, taken 45 years ago, to create a centralized statistical agency, the dominion bureau of statistics. In contrast-
-and this is the point I want to make- no specific policy has been enunciated with respect to economic analysis which developed, into an organized activity employing substantial staffs only during world war II.
Then the report goes on to indicate that at the present time economic analysis is concentrated largely in three places-the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Labour. Surprisingly enough, the conclusion drawn by the Glassco commission is that the Department of Finance itself, which might be considered the key department, is remarkably short of people who can do economic analysis.
Under economic intelligence the Glassco report says:
Some economists, perhaps best exemplified by those in the Bank of Canada and the departments of finance and trade and commerce, are engaged in general economic intelligence; they are constantly observing economic trends and develop-
Economic Council of Canada ments, both national and international, which may have widespread significance for the whole Canadian economy.
Then it goes on to point out that in all these stages of working environments for economic analysts and statisticians there has been no great emphasis on economists and economic analysts in the federal civil service. There is no real need to fear the creation of a few more economists. The working environment, according to the Glassco report, contains this kind of situation:
-in some departments senior administrators have only a cloudy conception of economic analysis, which usually results in an attitude of naive skepticism toward economics in general. The mere engagement of a number of economists is not particularly productive, if senior officials do not understand how these professionals can contribute to the work of the department.
This is a point I want to draw to the attention of the government in view of some of the later suggestions which I wish to make. The commissioner said:
Your commissioners are satisfied that, having regard to the widely dispersed and varied needs for economic analysis in the public service, it would be impracticable to establish a central economic bureau which would1 second economists to departments and agencies in need of their services.
However, the personnel division of the treasury board should maintain an active and continuous interest in the development of career opportunities for economists, as for other professional public servants.
And the report goes on to say how that can be done.
Then in order to make its point with regard to economic analysis, the Glassco commission went to the trouble of analysing the French, the British and the American experience. Since there seemed to be some more parallels between the U.S. president's council of economic advisers and this council which we have here, it might be worth while, I think, to make a few references to the president's council of economic advisers. The council publishes every year a report which goes to the president, and is associated with his report to congress on the economic state of the union. The intriguing thing about the economic council of advisers is its very wide acceptance on the American scene. I suppose it is really only a few people, like those in the John Birch society or Barry Goldwater, who worry about the council of economic advisers.
One of the former members of this council, Neil Jacoby, who was an academic economist working out of a California university, has made a number of points in connection with this council of economic advisers to which I should like to draw the attention of the minister. The minister has the problem of having 25 occasional members of the

Economic Council of Canada board, if you want to put it that way, and three full time members. I think our experience with the board of broadcast governors and the C.B.C. indicates that having a trio of full time people and a congregation of so called interested parties across the country really has not worked very well, at least if we believe all the stories we have heard recently about the dichotomy of interests between the permanent members, who are the experts, and these occasional people who come in. In the United States the council of economic advisers is not saddled with a bunch of people who pretend to be representative. What you have is a chairman and two advisers. These three people have been in every case academicians, or academic economists. Or if you want to put it a little more broadly, they are people who are trained in economics and know something about it. I cannot think of anything more fatuous in some ways than to appoint three full-time people to this Canadian job who are not economists. You have men like George DeYoung, for example, who is not trained in economics and who obviously- here I differ very markedly with the leader of the Social Credit party-has been going around the country speaking to Rotary and chamber of commerce banquets and whipping up exhortations about the beauties of labour-management co-operation. He and the national productivity council never did get down to any real outline of our problems in the productivity area and they did not come up with a single economic study that will bear any kind of test of time except, I suppose, for the report on the trip to Europe which was the casually interesting sort of fact finding tour that had been made long ago by some of our academic and professional economists. The news that they brought back was only surprising, I suppose, to those people who limit their reading to a single newspaper.
The point I want to make in connection with the economic council that the President of the United States has is that these men do not go around the country exhorting businessmen or labour or anyone else. They play a full time role in economic analysis and they head a fairly large staff of experts who are partly drawn in on a temporary basis, as may be possible under this legislation, to do task force jobs in special fields. In other words, there is an interplay moving in and out. Here is the place where the business economist or the trade unionist economist functions rather, than in the top trio who in a sense are the top experts in their craft.


But one of the points that Mr. Jacoby makes is that it is a mistake if the members of the council represent different schools of economic thought. I can just imagine a council with John Deutsch as chairman and Lome McDougall and Dr. Shrumm from British Columbia as members. You can just see the possibilities of conflict there, and a complete breakdown in this trio really getting things going. I want to suggest to the minister that the three permanent members should have a strong grounding in academic economics, that they should have the reputation of being professional economists and that some effort should be made to see that all three of them have generally the same economic approach. I hope it is not a pre-Keynesian approach such as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) introduced in his budget.
One of the other things I should like to note about the council in the United States is that as a result of the fact that the three of them are generally kept away from what seems to be a favorite activity in Canada, sending people up and down the country to exhort and to stump, they have time to concentrate upon really serious study, and the popularization of what they do comes later when their reports are published and particularly when the president, or in our case the ministry of the government, sets out to popularize and interpret their findings and indicators in a way that can be presented generally and publicly.
There is one feature about the United States set-up that is handy and I think it would be an improvement here. I refer to how long these people should be members of the council. I think they should only be in office at the pleasure of the government, because it seems to me that if, as is quite possible in the Canadian scene, we have a change of government these are three positions in particular that require people in them that will be sympathetic to the objectives of the government. I have grave doubts at the present time whether it is right that the board of broadcast governors should consist of the three personalities who are now there, in view of the fact that I know that on the part of some members of the government at least there is a certain distaste because of their background. I think that particularly in the case of economic analysis you need to have some kind of approach that is not antithetical. Just imagine the Leader of the Opposition being back in power, saddled with a couple of left wing economists and not being able to do anything about it. You can just see the difficulties that would arise. This is a point from the United States experience.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He had the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton).


Douglas Mason Fisher: Another point I should like to make with regard to the American experience is that the economists who are picked should have some experience and background in government organization. None of us can judge whether the so-called whiz kid, Stanley, from Toronto and these other fellows, are good economists, but it is quite apparent they do not know very much about government organization or the operations of the Department of National Revenue. In this sense it seems to me that what the government needs to be looking for in the permanent members are economists who have proved by their publications, their addresses, the courses that they teach and their associations that they have some conception of the federal framework of government, at the very least.
One thing that is quite apparent about the economic council of advisers in the United States is that as the years have gone by they have increasingly won the respect of congress itself. I think it is worth while noting this, because congress tends to be very suspicious of any group of advisers which is working primarily for the president. Of course, one of the reasons why congress has been won over to a degree is that the reports are made public and because the council acts as an integrating or co-ordinating authority for all kinds of economic research that is being carried on, including some that is being provided for congressional committees themselves.
One of the cliches that seem to come up in this house is that whenever our friends immediately next to this group mention the idea of money somebody always says, yes, go ahead and print it, and we get the idea of the printing press. Also, whenever we mention planning in our party somebody throws up his hands and says immediately, dictatorship, and we .are heading in a terrible direction.
I should like to say something about the differences and distinctions that the minister drew between indicative and imperative planning. He did not give a complete or thorough review. In this sense it may be that the Leader of the Opposition has a point. The more economic tools we develop, which I suppose will be the chief function of the economic council, the more it becomes apparent that by using these economic tools, by shifting investment and providing incentives here and penalties there, you do move toward control of the economy, and whether it is going to be indicative planning or imperative planning is really a matter of mere semantics rather than any substantial difference.
Economic Council of Canada
I give this example, if hon. members will look at it. The Minister of Finance seems to feel that the most influential item of what still remains in his budget is the incentive to industries to establish in underdeveloped or slow developing economic areas of our country, because of the tax free period. This in essence is a nice, sweet form of incentive; but once you have the kind of economic analysis that leads you to know the whole pattern of possible incentives or penalties with regard to investment, direction of income and employment and the kind of training that people should have it almost becomes a question of playing on this economic machinery like an organ.
I do not think that anyone would say that A. A. Eerie, the American economist, is dangerous or suspect or Marxist, in fact he is famous as an anti-Castro man. In his book ''The American Economic Republic", he makes the point that we have in the United States a managed kind of economy, and that the argument between the so-called laissez faire types and the interventionist types is an unreal one. As we move more and more towards an understanding of the economic system, and such things as input and output tables, and begin to move down to detail about our whole national economy, the more it will become just a question of plugging in or plugging out or pressing here or pressing there. It will require a fairly complex system of penalties and incentives. We have many now, in a disorganized way.
Now, to say that we are moving towards this when we already have it in some fields is a platitude. When there is a big distinction made between so-called indicative planning and imperative planning, it is, it seems to me, nothing more than a piece of sophistry that may be instrumental in keeping the former prime minister off the Liberal government's back. I do not believe it should really deceive anybody.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic party, if it could have the economic council of its dreams, would of course take something like this bill and then try to give the council power to frame, more specifically, the kind of measures that would be needed in order to respond to the economic indicators and the long range policies that the economic council recommend. One of the points to which we always need to return when we talk about economists, is to remember that they are not the gods of this world, and that economics is just a means by which each one of us, we hope, and our country, and the world will be made richer. In doing this, the society of today finds its motives and its ambitions, I

Economic Council of Canada think, less and less in the marketplace and in the field of economics, and more and more outside of it.
The minister, in his analysis, made the point with which I agree, that because of the catch-up in post-war demand and the effect of the tremendous productive capacity that followed investments leading up into the midfifties, we have satisfied to quite an extent the main consumer needs in this country. I assume, although he did not say it, that going on from this we need to develop new or additional consumer needs. I suppose the grounds for this are going to develop in what we refer to as the technical and social fields, that is new needs in new equipment, in a better education and a deeper, richer life, if you want to put it that way, through cultural activities, through such things as centennials and an emphasis upon history.
This is really not the field of the economist. It seems to me this is the difficult role of the economic council. If it produces overmuch respect through its operation it may even dominate the climate of thinking in this country about what our goals should be. 'While it is all very well for us to emphasize the economic goals that our society should have, I think all of us today realize that there are many larger ones. This, in a sense, brings in a point made by the former prime minister regarding provincial jurisdictions and provincial problems. I mention this because so many of the provincial responsibilities are not primarily economic. They are educational and they are cultural. In that sense, they are ones which the federal government can never provide.
It seems to me that here is where any interplay needs to take place. It seems to me that the economic management of this country's economy can only be done at the federal level, with any kind of justice. I say this in denial of what some of our friends, including friends of our own party in Quebec seem to feel, that you can establish within the sovereignty of a single state some kind of viable economic system that could go on regardless of the over-all matrix of the economy in the rest of the country. But in the direction of the provincial needs, the economic council, and the members who come to it, it seems to me will be generally charged with the responsibility of translating both what the provinces need and what we need, socially and culturally, for the consideration of the full time people, so that they can better comprehend both what we express in parliament itself and what the needs of our economic system should be.
One of the points made by the leader of the Social Credit party I cannot help mentioning. He seemed to feel that the productivity


council was well on its way to introducing a new period of harmony in management-labour relations. He seems to feel that this is going to be one of the great objectives of the economic council. I want to express right at this time a great scepticism that this is the role or can be the role of the economic council. It seems to me that we have not yet reached the stage, either in the sophistication or organization of Canadian labour union in any national way, when a national economic council could serve as any great instrument for better management-labour relations. It seems to me that is frustrated right off the bat by the division of labour responsibility, federally and provincially.
It is frustrated because of the differing character of so much of the Canadian labour movement, and the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress does not speak for the whole labour movement. I do not believe the congress would want to claim to speak for the whole labour movement. It is quite apparent from the way in which the Canadian Labour Congress has been moving in connection with the difficulties it has with some of its own membership, that we are not at the stage when we can say that, on the national level, we have a coherent labour group with coherent aims and with a single leadership that is prepared to speak for the whole labour movement within the framework of something like the economic council. They could advise, yes. I want to emphasize also that I feel the business community in Canada is really not much better off than the labour community in terms of really being able to express national intentions and wishes of the groups represented on this national economic council. I am not trying to be negative in giving these, in a sense, warnings.
It seems to me this may be important, however, because there may be a tremendous expectation that these 25 people who will be on this economic council, who will be selected to represent farm groups, labour groups and so on, are somehow or other going to give you a real economic forum on the national level that can do things. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think they can do them any better than we can do them here in parliament. As advisers, as interlocutors or in a sense liaison people with ideas on the situations out in the country, they can do a fine job. In time, if the economic council develops into the kind of organization and representation that some of these agencies parallel to it have in the United Kingdom, in France or in the United States, then I think it may be time to talk of a new period or a new opportunity in the field of management-labour relations on the national level.

The final remark I would like to make about the economic council is related to what I might say is the left wing or the radical bias that I hope still exists in our party. For years we have claimed, and we believe it, that economic planning is the tool by which Canada can achieve almost anything that it wants in the economic field. Now, when one goes that far you are of course usually asked to spell out in more detail just how this would work out, how it could be done, what would be some of the steps you would take, and what kind of agencies you would create.
Usually there is the spectre, raised by people who do not sympathize with our point of view, that our kind of operation would lead to a great deal of nationalization, and that in a sense we would take over very many industries. I would like to comment here that in his speech on the budget address, and on a number of other occasions, the leader of our party has shown in main outline the kind of steps we would take in the short term to get our economy going again, and in essence the very same principles and ideas would be the ones we would put forward and have advocated by any economic council we would create.
We think the economic council is likely to be a very sterile operation in terms of good or effective advice, if the three people selected for it are the kind of economists who believe in a laissez faire economy, who are afraid to detail a program that an effective government would be prepared to carry out, and which an ineffective government would hesitate in front of, because of the likelihood of causing a storm in one part of the community or another.
The New Democratic party sees this legislation as another very small step along a road that we think is inevitable for this country. We just wish it was a larger stride but we are not complaining about the fact that it is being taken; and later on, if we have the time, other speakers will deal with some of the more specific details.
I was intrigued that the Leader of the Social Credit party and the leader of the official opposition made the point that, as this discussion goes further and as we get into the clauses of the bill, they will, if I may use the metaphor, work like terriers shaking out each clause. We will be very interested in seeing what kind of amendments they present. We believe the bill as it stands is a fairly good one. It does not go as far as we would like, but we are satisfied with it as it is; and aside from possibly one or two small amendments or suggestions we feel the bill should be put into effect as quickly as possible; and we would hope it has very smooth sailing in the next hour or so.
Economic Council of Canada


Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have found the debate on this particular piece of legislation very interesting, and I would like to comment first on the speech of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). I listened with considerable interest to his developing thoughts as he talked about the bill and I could not help but note the contrast, at least what I took as a very marked contrast, between his comments and those of the leader of his party and of the former member for York South when a bill of a more or less similar nature was debated last session.
As he talked about the inevitable trend towards planning, and as he indicated that the difference between indicative planning and imperative planning was almost a question of semnatics, I felt how much less dogmatic, almost doctrinaire, this type of talk seemed to that we used to hear from his leader and from the former member for York South. There seemed to be an encouraging absence of the old, traditional, socialist jargon and instead there seemed to be a markedly helpful attitude, and considerable promise.
I took from his remarks that, after he went through his analysis of this bill, he really liked it. I assumed he was speaking for his party, and he did not have much to add so far as the legislation itself is concerned. Indeed I almost got the feeling that if his party formed a government it would bring down similar legislation to this.
The only area that he seemed particularly concerned with, and I am not sure this pertains technically to the legislation itself, was the character of the appointees. If these men were not of a calibre that he would like then, according to him, the legislation would not achieve its ends. If, on the other hand, they were, then this legislation is fine.
As I say, this seems to me to be a marked contrast to the type of dissertation we heard with respect to this type of legislation last session. I thought for a while, when these preconditioned reflexes of the various parties were expressed in the house, as they are whenever legislation such as this comes up, that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition would come out with the usual more or less daily red herring about dominion-provincial relations and bureaucracy, and I thought he would probably come up with the old phrase that our front bench is loaded with civil servants and that we are going to impose terrible restrictions on the country. In fact he managed to cover most of his usual stamping ground pretty well. However, it is a well-worn path by now, while the hon. member for Port Arthur seemed to travel a little different and a little more refreshing route tonight.
2110	HOUSE OF
Economic Council of Canada
I thought, after the rather massive attack on this type of legislation launched by the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps a little stronger rebuttal would come forth from hon. members to my right, but it did not seem to disturb them too much in listening to the Leader of the Opposition's lead-off speech. In fact there seemed to be a marked defence- and this is one disturbing area-for the Leader of the Opposition's position.
The hon. member for Port Arthur reminded him of his government's ARDA proposal, of their Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act, of the Glassco commission recommendations in which they took considerable pride, and pretty well tried to point out that the Conservative party under previous leadership, as I took it from the conclusion of his remarks, were really quite a progressive lot. This may be somewhat surprising, but I have always suspected that there was, more or less, a mutual trust and understanding between our hon. friends of the New Democratic party and the Conservative party, and this becomes more evident the longer I sit in the house.
I think this mutual trust comes from the fact, not that they agree but that they both have marked out and well staked ground. Each knows the limits of the other. Both are quite prepared to let each party solely occupy that ground, and there is really no invasion expected by either one; so that this leads to mutual trust and understanding. I think perhaps this mutual trust and understanding can lead to the rather laudatory remarks that we heard this evening from the deputy leader. It makes me recall the headlines regarding the speeches made during the election campaign. It seemed that the only political party which aroused the anger and frustration of our friends of the New Democratic party was the Liberal party. Really the Conservative party was more or less a secondary thought. Of course, the Conservatives were completely preoccupied with the Liberal party, almost to the exclusion of the New Democratic party, and it made me think-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fane:: That will be the day.


John Carr Munro: It made me think of the ever increasing tendency of these parties which have preconditioned reflexes to new ideas, because they usually follow a stereotyped pattern; they both have their own well staked out ground, and they have a horrible suspicion of a party which accommodates itself to changing conditions and times. They have this suspicion of our party, that I think can really trace its rather phenomenal success electorally in this country over the decades


to being a party that is capable to a very ready degree of accommodating itself to ideas as they develop.


Mr. Pritlie:: Which party is that?


John Carr Munro: I am speaking of the Liberal party. As these ideas develop and as a political party tries to analyse whether they are effective or not and tries to take some responsibility for implementing them, a certain portion of an idea may fall into one of these well staked out areas which have been trampled for several decades by the two parties over there. Of course, this immediately sets in a reaction of anger and frustration, that we should develop such an idea. I cannot help but notice this ever increasing trend.
I think the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher)-although I was most interested in his speech, as I say-was disappointing in this respect. I thought he would have retaliated in stronger fashion, and frankly he surprised me. I recall reading one of his articles in the Telegram, the article being headed "Why I gunned for Walter Gordon".


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am always glad to meet my readers.


John Carr Munro: I could not help thinking, at the time I read it-this was when he raised the question that started this "whiz kid" debate-that really he did not get much publicity out of it; other stalwarts of his party more or less took over. This certainly points out the advantages of being a journalist and part time member. If you feel that certain of your-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Keep buying that paper.


John Carr Munro: -most wise and sharp political manoeuvres are going unnoticed, you can always write your own column about them. I think perhaps a good title for an article now, after listening to the hon. member's speech, would be, "Why I shot blanks at John Diefen-baker". At any rate, I think that legislation such as this is most progressive. It is certainly in line with the policies we on this side of the house have advocated since 1958.
It was interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) talk about the Liberal party in this regard. Again, there was an essential contradiction in his speech. In one breath he talked about how we had stolen the idea from him because he had brought in a bill similar to this during the last session, and in the next breath he started to warn us against the dire danger we face from bureaucratic trends which will automatically set in as a result of the passage of a bill such as this. It was difficult to ascertain whether he was for or against this type of legislation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He has not made up his mind yet.


John Carr Munro: The speech of the Leader of the Opposition was more or less a partisan, political speech; political junk, you could almost call it. He threw in everything but a learned treatise on the traditional approach of the Conservative party on matters encompassed in legislation such as this. Therefore I take it, when he has to resort to a speech of the type he has just delivered in this house, that perhaps the Conservative party no longer embraces the traditional approach to boards such as this, which in a way are inevitably going to intervene in the free play of our economic forces. So we can take it the Conservative party has changed their position. Their position is not defined to the degree where the Leader of the Opposition wants to take any definite stand. He has to resort, again, to this path that was so well trod before the last election.
I cannot help but refer to a few of his observations. He talked about the Liberal party regarding legislation of this kind as a vehicle to solve all problems. That was misinterpretation in which it is usual for the Leader of the Opposition to indulge, because this certainly was at no time mentioned by the minister when he spoke in introducing this legislation. We at no time have held this out as any panacea for the cure of all our economic problems. So this, again, was a figment of the imagination of the Leader of the Opposition.
I have referred to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition said we stole this legislation. This is usually the lament we hear from our friends in the far corner.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


John Carr Munro: But apparently this is another more or less common stamping ground that they do not mind each other travelling, and they recognize each other's proprietary rights to walk the path without interference. This would indicate, perhaps, how ready we are to accommodate ourselves to ideas without too much concern as to who has the particular ownership of such ideas. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the audacious action that was mentioned by the minister who introduced this legislation, and he referred to the budget. I could not help feeling that the Leader of the Opposition was using this occasion to really launch another attack on the budget.


Mr. Orlikow:: You would rather forget about it.


John Carr Munro: He no doubt thinks this is politically fertile ground to cultivate, and no
Economic Council of Canada doubt on every opportunity until the recess comes along this matter will be raised. In every debate there will technically be some relevance to the matter before us but as far as the substance is concerned they will inevitably come back to the budget. I think it can be said now-and I as a member am more than pleased to say-that as far as the budget is concerned, I think it envisaged much audacious action, audacious action that was noticeably lacking all during the last administration.


David Orlikow: Not now.


John Carr Munro: I do think it still contains many proposals of an advantageous nature and it certainly does contain the characteristic of audacity. I do not think that we in the Liberal party have anything to be ashamed of with respect to this budget. If we allow ourselves to be convinced by the remarks of hon. members opposite we would have to retreat to a position such as this country has come to expect-a minister of finance who would follow a cautious road- the last thing that we in this country need. Certainly those who support the New Democratic party have never advocated a conventional course. There were proposals in this budget of a more or less revolutionary nature -and one does not have to be very revolutionary in this country; we are so cautious in matters of this kind that the slightest change involves, almost, a complete upheaval.
As far as many members of this party are concerned, I think the Minister of Finance rates a great deal of credit for the proposals in this budget.


Some hon. Members:: Which ones.


John Carr Munro: I think we are all prepared to go to the people with respect to the proposals contained in this budget any time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member that if he intends to discuss the budget his remarks should be related as closely as possible to the bill under consideration.


John Carr Munro: I cannot help thinking that the Leader of the Opposition did not stick too closely to the terms of this particular bill. I suppose we can now conclude quickly because, as one member of this house, I hate to regurgitate material which was well chewed in the last parliament with respect to legislation such as this. I expect we shall hear it all in the next day or two. The Conservatives, on the one hand, will accuse us of trying to discourage initiative, of introducing creeping socialism. There will be dire warnings that we intend to push people

Economic Council of Canada around; that we are going to set up some bureaucratic form of control which will take away the fundamental rights of the people. On the other hand, we will surely hear from our friends who sit in the far right corner, as we have heard before, that we have hooked their idea-an idea which only they are capable of implementing with sincerity-and they usually seem to infer that they have a sole and special interest in that virtue. And I suppose, when all the speeches are over, we shall pass this legislation, having loaded the pages of Hansard with the same jargon as we talked last session.
I think, though, there are a couple of issues with regard to this legislation which are disturbing. Even if it is passed-and I expect it will be-I cannot help wondering whether any of the recommendations which would be made by this board will be implemented. Even if the recommendations and advice given by the council are such that they could be of considerable assistance to this country I cannot help wondering whether the action which this council will probably suggest would ever be implemented. I think there are related factors in this country over which this particular parliament has no power- factors which cast considerable doubt on the outcome of this measure. Chief among them is the degree of sectional interest which has assumed an alarming influence in our economy. Our political parties are now orientated almost entirely on the basis of sectional interest. Their platforms are orientated almost entirely on the basis of sectional considerations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Did the hon. member say, "sectional"?


John Carr Munro: I would say that as long as the areas from which we come, and the particular prejudices of those areas, form so prominent a part of the thinking of our political parties it is doubtful whether legislation, however meritorious, which may be recommended by this particular board could ever be passed. Certainly it would never be passed, judging by the behaviour which can be observed in this parliament. We talk about what we hope this bill will mean. We hope it will result in some type of direction to this country which will be superior to what I think we are all prepared to acknowledge has been the haphazard development of our natural resources and investment possibilities, while these were left exclusively in the hands of private interest. I am sure we all hope this board will encourage a more orderly and progressive trend in the development of our natural resources and of investment both private and public. That is what we hope. Whether our parliament and our country, 
being what it is intrinsically, has developed to a degree which could even match a development such as that would be surprising to me, and I hate to be a cynic. I think that the machinery for the implementation of recommendations which may be made by this board leaves much to be questioned. No doubt some of them will be considered by the cabinet, but many of them will be considered in this house and judging by the tendency of our political parties to talk in terms of partisan advantage every day-and the rules, such as they are, permit it-they will not get very far. This more or less archaic institution we have here which almost stifles and grinds to a halt every type of progressive action, seems to me to be an outworn obstacle in the way of a cure to unemployment and the orderly development of our natural resources generally.


An hon. Member:: Let us pass this now and talk afterwards.


John Carr Munro: Perhaps we can pass it quickly and get on to other items on the order paper which will to a far greater degree assist in implementing the objects of legislation such as this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he tell us what he thinks of the principle of the bill he has been discussing?


John Carr Munro: The hon. member knows I have already said I think it will promote and encourage private industry and private capital into a more orderly and progressive development of our natural resources and investment generally. I also think it will lead, in the public sector, to a more equitable development of our natural resources and of our secondary industry. I think I covered all this in my remarks. I think it will all be repeated on numerous occasions in the next few days, until even the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre understands the purpose of this legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, a serious error has occurred here. It is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who fails to understand.


John Carr Munro: I am sorry. I think I should ask the forgiveness of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, it seems more than passing strange to me that on the first day of the second reading of this bill hon. members opposite have the presumption and impertinence to say that we should get on immediately with the business of the house. I am sure that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) who

is the house leader, has not even consulted his party. He knows full well our intentions about getting on with the business of this house. The hon. member who has just spoken suggested that there wras great similarity between this bill and the one discussed in the last parliament. Mr. Speaker, they discussed our bill for seven days and never even began to pass it, and the hon. member has the gall to come into this house and speak in that way. I would say that this is absolutely ludicrous.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: I feel that this matter should be aired very briefly.
I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who said that we seemed to be preoccupied with certain aspects of the legislation before us when we initiated the ARDA legislation some months ago. Let me point out to hon. members one of the essential differences readily apparent to us. Within the centre of ARDA we saw at all times the principle of local participation, local ideas and local initiative. What we are pointing out to hon. members at the present time is that if the thinkers who seem to be guiding the government have their way, the council under discussion will have their planning ideas superimposed by them from the top. This is the fear we have and it is what we are bringing to the attention of hon. members and the Canadian people.
This was one point the hon. member for Port Arthur obviously failed to realize. He pointed out that we initiated winter works legislation, while we have been talking about the municipal loan fund legislation. The leader of my party in this house pointed out one essential difference, which was quite simple. When the minister of labour consulted the provinces it was just a simple case of consultation. Hon. members opposite did not even bother to preoccupy themselves with the courtesy of consulting with the provinces. Mr. Speaker, although like many hon. members present I have a great respect for those who come from the halls of learning, after listening to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) and the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) I am more convinced than ever that this chamber is essentially a debating chamber and not a lecture hall.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) made an interjection in connection with the party to my left about left-wing economists. We have in our party the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) who was the minister of agriculture of the former administration. We were proud to have him, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who was a great minister of
Economic Council oj Canada agriculture, showed that Conservatism does have a dynamic attitude toward the future. As this debate gets under way we become convinced of one thing. We look at the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) with his Dixie-crat attitude towards Canada and the economy in general. We also cannot help realizing that going through the veins of the Secretary of State is still that doctrinal mysticism of Liberalism.


An hon. Member:: Get up on your feet.


William Heward Grafftey: Then you listen to the theory expounded in this house this afternoon by the President of the Privy Council, ideas which are at the forefront-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please.


William Heward Grafftey: The President of the Privy Council enunciated ideas which control the Liberal party today, t^e realize that the Grit bed is a large, pragmatic bed and there is room for everybody in it.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: There is a murmur of interruption and conversation coming from both sides of the house which makes it very difficult for the Chair to follow the very interesting remarks of the hon. gentleman who has the floor. I would ask the assistance and co-operation of all hon. members in allowing the Chair to follow his remarks.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, since the first time I spoke in this house somehow or other I have had to get used to lots of noise and interruption from the other side. I will not suggest that my skin is thick, but day by day I am getting used to it.
As we peruse this legislation before us for second reading we become aware of the fact that memories are very short. When we brought similar legislation before this house in the last parliament we were criticized for creating what hon. gentlemen opposite at that time called an agency of the government. They said that this just was not the thing to do. Let me point out that in debating this bill on second reading we are discussing the principle of a planning agency. We were criticized for creating an agency when in fact what we were setting up in the last parliament was an independent commission of government. Now hon. members opposite go ahead and create an agency themselves.
I should like to point out that the change in those who hold the reins of office has resulted in a change of attitude in this instance, and we on this side of the house would like to know why there has been a change of attitude. The leader of my party said that we had legislation passed in this house with regard to a productivity council. After seven days of debate Bill No. C-87,
2114	HOUSE OF
Economic Council of Canada to create a national economic development board, was nowhere near being passed. Hon. members opposite are going to be put to great pains to show in the clauses of this bill wherein lies the difference between their bill and our bill. On the other hand, we are certainly going to point out what we think will be a great difference in attitude with respect to this bill. They are going to be put to very great pains to tell the people of Canada why this bill has been introduced, when the last government introduced a similar bill which hon. members opposite decided after seven days of debate not to pass. So much for the agency aspect involved in the principle of this bill.
Now let us talk for a brief moment about planning. We in this House of Commons have learned in the last few weeks that very often the planners, after many days of decision, have to occupy themselves with many days of revision. Hon. members opposite in years gone by have told us not to worry about the plans they had for the Canadian people. The Canadian people saw many of their plans in the years before we formed the government. They saw the plans of a government which often thought it was working on the same plane with the deity, and was just going to tell all of us what was good for us whether or not we wanted it. The Canadian people do not want this kind of planning, which is essentially alien to the Canadian spirit.


An hon. Member:: They did not seem to want yours either.


William Heward Grafftey: I am sure that many members of the house have read a book from the United Kingdom entitled "Ordeal By Planning". We heard a lot for many years about the misfortunes of planning on the part of the labour government there. Members to my left in the house no longer even mention the word nationalization. I am sure that the leader of the New Democratic party, after his experience with nationalization in Saskatchewan, is not going to take even minutes to talk about planning in this sense. We have seen the experience with planning in the United Kingdom and in the province of Saskatchewan, and Canadians and people throughout the western world are becoming fundamentally realistic in their attitude toward it.
Perhaps it is not a parliamentary word but we have heard a lot of gobbledygook perpetrated in the name of mystical planning. Robert Burns himself said:
The best laid schemes o' mice and men
Gang aft agley.
Sir, we have heard a lot of real mysticism, real fervour, in the discussion of planning.
[Mr. Grafftey.l

We have heard about indicative planning, imperative planning, planning for planning's sake. What the Canadian people are worried about is planning for planning's sake. If the President of the Privy Council would get up in the house and tell his own party and the people of Canada exactly what planning he really has in mind, and he knows what he has in mind, he would soon hear what the Canadian people think about this type of planning.
I do not want to become too rustic in my phrases or explanations but I think that each member of the house, when he or she was young was told to "plan your work and work your plan." Every businessman, every farmer, everybody who keeps books knows all about that. Every farmer who runs a successful farming operation, every businessman who is running a successful business operation, every politician who has run a successful election campaign knows that you have to plan. All I say to hon. members such as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) and the President of the Privy Council is: Please, in the name of goodness do not lecture us; do not talk down to us in such professional tones and envelop the word planning with such great mysticism.
I simply ask the President of the Privy Council to tell us in clearcut terms as this debate proceeds what he means by planning. If he makes a clearcut statement to the house and to the Canadian people we will see that with members of the treasury benches such as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), who perpetrated on the Canadian people the worst budget in the history of the nation, he is talking about planning for planning's sake. He is talking about a philosophy which is completely alien to the spirit of the Canadian people. I know that the hon. member for Port Arthur is either going to write a news column or say on the floor of the house at a future time-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Just keep reading it.


William Heward Grafftey: -that I sound like Barry Goldwater-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: -when I say that one of the dynamic principles at the centre of the party I support in this house-


An hon. Member:: Herbert Hoover.


William Heward Grafftey: -is a sincere preoccupation with the rights of the individual. We do not talk one thing and do another. In the case of every piece of legislation brought to the floor of the House of Commons by our administration, the rights and the dignity of the individual were foremost in the minds of our government. I suggest that unless

members opposite do a much better job than they have up to now either in their party literature or on the floor of the house in explaining in clearcut, direct terms to the Canadian people what they mean by planning, the Canadian people will suspect that they are going to return to the pre-1956-57 days when the Liberal party thought the state existed not for the individual, but that the individual existed for the state.


An hon. Member:: You were a Liberal in those years.


William Heward Grafftey: I was a Liberal in those years and I am sure hon. members opposite would not like to know tonight why I changed.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


William Heward Grafftey: I changed parties and I am not going into the reasons tonight because hon. members opposite do not like to hear why. You may think that hon. members are noisy, Mr. Speaker, but if I told them why it would fairly lift the roof. They do not like to be told about their divide and rule policies.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Certainly.


Douglas Mason Fisher: He brought up the question of why he left the Liberal party. I want to give him the opportunity to deny a rumour and I will put it in question form. Would the hon. member say whether he left the Liberal party because he failed to get an appointment?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have always considered the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) a personal friend of mine outside the house, and I do not think that question was worthy of him. I would deny it completely. I deny that suggestion and I really think-


An hon. Member:: Yes or no.


William Heward Grafftey: No, unequivocally.


Mr. Clancy:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Port Arthur should withdraw that question right now. He should know by now that it is not according to the rules to impugn the honesty of another member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think we are drifting away from the purpose of the legislation and I would suggest to hon. members on this side of the house that they allow the hon. member to proceed without too much interruption.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, no member of this house has the right-
28902-5-135
Economic Council of Canada


Mr. Habel:: To ask a question?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: -to impugn the honesty of another member.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I imputed no dishonesty.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, on the point that has been raised, I think that surely there ought to be some order in the house this evening. Those of us who have been associated for five years with the hon. member who is speaking know that he sincerely left the Liberal party because of his beliefs, and for no other reason.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
We are now discussing the establishment of an economic council for Canada. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the President of the Privy Council and the hon. lady from Northumberland explain her collectivist theory, I think that even if this legislation seems similar to the legislation we brought before this House of Commons, the people should be made aware of the differences in attitude in our party and the party opposite to bills of this nature.


An hon. Member:: We are well aware of it.


William Heward Grafftey: You know, sir, when I hear interruptions as I do from hon. members opposite I am reminded of the fact that, as everyone in this house regardless of party knows, this is a pretty rough game we are in in Canada, no matter what happens. Members like the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) do not make public life any easier for any member. I suggest that he clean out his mouth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: I am not annoyed, Mr. Speaker, but cheap interruptions-I think the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) recognizes this-are not worthy of hon. members opposite or of this house in general. If you have an interruption of substance and intelligence to make, then make it and I will sit down. I will try to answer your questions. Your interruptions are not even appreciated by the members of your own party, the intelligent ones.
I suggest again, sir, that we scrutinize this legislation and that we scrutinize the attitude of hon. members opposite towards it to make sure that this nation, once again, will not be burdened with this notion of planning for the sake of planning. We hope, as most hon. members hope and most Canadians hope that this measure will not mean direction and regimentation which is so alien to the Canadian spirit, the kind of direction and

Economic Council of Canada regimentation that was superimposed on this nation before 1957. We hope it will not mean interference with individual initiative.
The hon. member for Port Arthur might say again that I sound like Barry Gold water. I am not afraid to get up on my feet in this House of Commons and state that the party I support believes that individual initiative, individual dignity still means something in 1963. There are many Canadians from coast to coast who believe that they can make their own way in life, naturally depending to a great extent on government, but not sharing in the collectivist views of the hon. lady from Northumberland or the views expounded by the President of the Privy Council in his book and on the floor of this House of Commons.
I agree fundamentally with most hon. members that no longer can we validly become involved in the old classical debate of free enterprise versus complete state control. We all recognize that this is no longer a valid debate in 1963. I am sorry if I seem to be underlining this fact again and again in my speech, but I believe it does bear repetition. While we should not get involved in this classical debate of free enterprise versus state control I think it is a very valid consideration for hon. members in this chamber, especially when government, whether we like it or not, is getting bigger and bigger, to do some honest, sincere thinking about individual dignity and the rights and freedom of the individual. This is especially true when we are talking about a bill of the basic importance of the one which is before us tonight.
Again, I appeal to the treasury benches opposite, to hon. members opposite, that if this bill is going to have any long or short term effects they must make it readily intelligible to the individual, if it is going to have any meaning at all in pushing our economy forward. In so far as this notion of planning is concerned, let me simply say this, and I think it is perhaps a truism, that we in Canada should be extremely proud of one of the greatest civil services in the western world. It has been my opinion, and I say this in a non-partisan way because I understand that when hon. members opposite did this they did it in a sincere way, that when the Liberal party forms a government they often tend to give the civil service jobs to do that they should not have to do, and which they often do not want to do. I said in another debate that Haldane said justice must not only be just, but it must be seen to be just. This is, in essence what he said. I refer to this because an administration which is made up of nine ex-senior bureaucrats must spell out

in detail what it means by planning if it is not going to be held suspect by the Canadian people from coast to coast.
Now, sir, the last principle that is involved in this bill and which I should like to discuss on second reading relates to the notion of consultation, which is a central principle in the bill. I am glad that hon. members opposite realize the necessity for consultation. I thought they were going to get off to a good start when I listened to the throne speech. They talked about co-operative federalism. All of us on this side of the house know that co-operative federalism denotes a high degree of consultation with the provinces.
Well, what has happened so far, Mr. Speaker?
One of the basic reasons that the whole economic policy of this government is floundering on the rocks is the lack of consultation. The Minister of Finance did not consult his officials; he consulted three experts outside his department. We have seen what happened to the budget as a result of lack of consultation. The Minister of Finance, and the members on the treasury benches, forgot to consult the provinces regarding the central aspect of their short term economic program. The Minister of Finance went on television, then he came to the floor of this house, and he said the municipal loan fund legislation was the key short term measure of their economic program to stimulate the economy. It would make jobs available immediately, he said. Before we announced the municipal winter works program, we consulted the provinces. What has happened? The whole short term program of the government is floundering because of lack of consultation. The budget floundered because of lack of consultation. I put questions to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) whether he consulted with the Minister of Finance regarding exemptions on building materials when he said there would be a $500 bonus given to people building houses in the winter months. We find that even members of the cabinet are not consulting each other, but I am glad that finally in this bill they realize the importance of the principle of consultation. Consultation often involves nothing more than courtesy.
I am not going to inform the house tonight whether I am taking the centralizing point of view or whether I am arguing for provincial rights. That is absolutely immaterial. But I can say that in 1963, things being what they are in this federal union of ours called Canada, no matter how much centralization the Minister of Finance advocates, I hope before he convinces the cabinet that certain legislation is good for the short term, someone, possibly a minister from Quebec or possibly

a minister from British Columbia, or any other province will tell him that consulting with the provinces, even by telephone occasionally, is a very handy thing to do.
The throne speech spoke of co-operative federalism and consultation. By their fruits ye shall know them; and I hope that the notion of consultation in this bill will really mean something. Just the other day the Prime Minister told the Canadian people his government wanted to get on immediately with the municipal loan fund legislation; but the President of the Privy Council, outside of this house, announced that we were in no hurry, that Mr. Lesage is correct and that we are going to wait. It seems to me that the centralizers do not consult those who believe in co-operative federalism in this new cabinet.
One of the real problems, and I regard it in a very optimistic nature, facing Canada today involves federal-provincial relations. Every Canadian of good will, no matter what party he belongs to, hopes that before 1967 many of the basic problems involving federal-provincial relations will be solved so that our centenary will be a true celebration for all Canadians from coast to coast.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Someone should ask what bill the hon. member is speaking on.


William Heward Grafftey: I do not think any Canadian will take heart in seeing federal-provincial relations bog down.
The Secretary of State asked me what bill I am speaking on. I would like to suggest to him that without proper consultation with the provinces there can be no success for much legislation, and I would ask hon. members opposite, on this 11th day of July, 1963, whether they have consulted with the provinces relating to this very bill before us; because surely by now they have learned their lesson, that their whole short-term economic program is on the rocks because they did not consult? I am only saying I hope they are going to take seriously the principle of consultation written in this bill.


Mr. Nowlan:: It is our bill.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings tells the truth when he says it is our bill. It is, as I explained a number of minutes ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. gentleman's friends consult the provinces before they introduced what he now says is their bill?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I am going to give a frank, forthright answer. I would be glad to speak to the members of my party
28902-5-135i
Economic Council of Canada involved and then inform my hon. friend of that. I would just like to draw attention to one of the suggestions put forward by the leader of the party I support. He mentioned the fact that, while he was not in agreement in detail with the bill, it has become obvious that some sort of organ is necessary in order to expedite proper federal-provincial relations. He pointed to the happy experience that we have had in relation to national resources. Members of all parties should take a very constructive attitude towards this question if we want to live in the type of Canada that I want to live in, and that I am sure all other hon. members want to live in in the years to come.
In closing I would like to say that hon. members opposite, be they on the treasury benches, or ordinary members supporting the government, have a direct obligation to explain to the Canadian people what they mean by planning. The Canadian people want to know whether it means planning for planning's sake, or direction and regimentation, which is so alien to the Canadian spirit. They have this obligation and they will not fulfil it by long professional discourses in this house.
I have a great respect for the halls of learning, but this is a debating chamber, and within the confines of it we want to know their attitude towards planning; and so do the people of Canada. We want to know if they have respect for individual initiative and the freedom that all people have in countries that want to live in freedom. It is an important thing to talk about and an important matter to which real consideration should be given.


Miss Pauline Jewett (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in the minute left to me I want to say I have not had such an entertaining evening since I entered the house, particularly of course the last half hour, and indeed I want to thank the hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) for giving me this entertainment.
I am glad in a way that it is almost ten o'clock because I want to give the hon. member who has just spoken a copy of Bill C-72. I would be extremely grateful if he would read it, because I would like very much on behalf of this party to discuss the bill on Monday-which I suppose will be the next day we will be talking about it-and I think it would be very helpful if he and some other members had copies of it.
I do not mean to sound professorial when I say that. I got all those cracks; I know they were intended for the minister, too. I do not want to have the hon. member think I am becoming professorial, but it helps debate

Appropriation Bill
enormously in this chamber if we read bills, if we think about them, and if we know what is in them.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. lady permit a question before 10 o'clock?


Pauline Jewett: I am afraid it is 10 o'clock.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would she also send a copy of the bill to her colleague from Hamilton East?



FINANCE


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the house to revert to government notices of motions for the purpose of advancing, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, the motion that appears in his name relating to the appropriation bill for the previous fiscal year. This is only a formal step that would put it under government orders tomorrow. There was an understanding that, if that were done, we would call it before going into committee of supply tomorrow, so that there might be an opportunity of having the bill introduced and given first reading, so that it would be available to hon. members over the week end for the purposes of debate on second reading on Monday. If there would be agreement to do this I would ask Your Honour to put the motion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we are quite agreeable to this proposal. Do I understand that the bill, if passed quickly tomorrow-which we would do, without debating the resolution-would be in our hands tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is my understanding, sir, that the bill is-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Printed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -printed. It might take a little time for distribution because it is rather voluminous. There will also be a report on supply which will be tabled at the beginning of the sitting tomorrow, which I believe contains the same details as the bill. But we are anxious to have all the documentation in the hands of hon. members for the debate on Monday.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could say a word or two in connection with the suggestion of the house leader. I certainly concur with what he suggested. I assume that the bill will be available to us tomorrow, and not in the mail box on Saturday, after we have passed the resolution. Hon. members realize

full well that this resolution embodies a discussion of financial expenditures made over the past year and it would be open to the committee dealing with the resolution to deal with it in an hour, or a day, or a month and ask a great many questions in connection with it.
The only qualification I would make to the agreement which has been made is that after second reading it does not necessarily follow-it may, but it does not necessarily follow-that we will go into committee and deal with the committee stage forthwith, because we may need to ask more questions and we may require some time in order to ascertain the detail which we would have ascertained at the resolution stage and which we will now deal with in committee of the whole following second reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has just informed me that he will have ready for tabling in the morning-I have a proof copy now-the report on supply, which contains everything of substance that will appear in the bill. It is not in the form of a bill. I cannot say just how fast, following first reading, the bills will be produced, but they will be produced just as fast as it is possible for the printing bureau to print them. I will take every possible step to see they are distributed as quickly as possible. I think that really all the essential detail will be found in the report on supply, which I understand will be available for distribution immediately it is tabled at 11 o'clock tomorrow.


George Clyde Nowlan: I quite appreciate the statement of the house leader. I think that report will probably contain most of the details, if not all of them. As long as we have an understanding that we do not have to go through committee of the whole immediately following second reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think it would also be clearly understood that if the house is good enough to facilitate this proceeding tomorrow, when we do reach the committee stage, on the first clause of the bill there would be on the part of the government no disposition to restrict in any way any discussion which would otherwise have taken place at the resolution stage. The government has not the slightest desire to restrict debate; we are merely seeking to abbreviate the formal steps-


George Clyde Nowlan: So are we.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -for a purpose that I think all hon. gentlemen share. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the motion could be put.


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve certain expenditures authorized in respect of the fiscal year ended on March 31, 1963, including those provided for by the special warrants issued by the governor in council of February 8, 1963 (P.C. 1963-227) and March 4, 1963 (P.C. 1963361) but not including the expenditures authorized by Appropriation Acts for that fiscal year; and to authorize the application of certain amounts in the accounts of the said fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the house leader would give us a forecast of the business that will be before us tomorrow and such days as he can indicate for next week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very happy to do that, sir. Tomorrow, once we have disposed of the committee stage, concerning
11. 1963	2119
Business of the House
which I understand there is a general disposition to regard as a formality preceding the appropriation bill, and had the first reading of the bill, we will take the estimates of the Department of Transport and, I pray, dispose of them during the day. On Monday it is proposed to take, as the first item of business, the appropriation bill which will be given first reading tomorrow and to proceed with it until it has been disposed of, and then to resume the debate on the economic council.
We would, of course, be very happy if both these measures could be disposed of on Monday. But in any event I think it would be the intention of the government to begin on Tuesday the budget resolutions, starting with the resolution respecting the customs tariff. What will be done on subsequent days of the week, I am not able to forecast sufficiently accurately at the moment to make it worth while communicating to the house.


[Stage Direction]
It being nine minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 12, 1963