1963-06-27

Mr. Ian Watson (Chaleauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: I rise on a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, after the budget vote, you asked me whether I was in my seat at the time the motion was put. I had entered my seat as you were finishing the reading of the motion. I was confused as to the exact time when the motion is considered as having been put, and I answered your question, Mr. Speaker, in the affirmative. I felt I had the right to vote.
Afterward I learned that the rule is that a member of the house must be in his seat when the Speaker starts to read the motion being put. I was not in my seat at that time; therefore my answer to you should have been no. I wish to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house for having given you an incorrect answer, but an answer which I believed at the time was correct. I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, that I pledge myself henceforth to learn my procedure from the rule book and not in this very embarrassing way.
(Translation):



MR. PIGEON  CORRECTION OF STATEMENT REGARDING PAIR

Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielfe-TAssomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to point out to the house that I made a mistake when I mentioned that I was paired with the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Drury); I should have said the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Turner).
(Text):



STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Blouin	Brown
Brewin	Cashin
Cameron (High Park)
Chretien
Dionne
Doucett
Drouin
Dube
Francis
Girouard
Howard
Jewett, Miss
Leboe
Macquarrie
Martineau
Millar
Monteith
More (Regina City)
Moreau
Nielsen
Paul
Pennell
Richard
Sauve
Turner
Webb
Woolliams-29.
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Addison Armstrong Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace)
Balcer Basford Beaule Bechard Belanger Bell Berger Boulanger Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) Cantelon Cowan Crossman Crouse Fisher Foy
Gauthier
Godin
Granger
Greene
Gregoire
Guay
Gundlock
Horner (Acadia)
Howe (Wellington-Huron)
Irvine
Jorgenson
Kennedy
Lachance
Lamb
Laniel
Leboe
Lessard (St. Henry)
Macaluso
MacEwan
Mackasey
Matte
McBain
McMillan
McNulty
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria)
Nielsen
Nixon
Orlikow
Pascoe
Rapp
Regan
Rheaume
Rideout
Rock
Ryan
Rynard
Tucker
Smith
Stenson
Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Watson (Assiniboia)-60. Webster
(Quorum-20)
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messrs:
Aiken
Alkenbrack
Basford
Beaule
Cameron (High Park)
Cantelon
Cooper
Coates
Cowan
Deachman
Forbes
Foy
Francis
Gelber
Gray
Gregoire
Groos
Harley
Honey
Horner (The Battlefords)
Jewett, Miss
Klein
Konantz, Mrs
Lambert
Langlois
Latulippe
Lloyd
Loney
Macdonald
Martin (Timmins)
Mather
McCutcheon
McLean
McMillan
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees	
Mitchell	Simpson
Moore	Slogan
Nixon	Southam
Ormiston	Tucker
Otto	Wahn
Paul	Webb
Rock	Webster
Roxburgh	Willoughby-50.
(Quorum-15)	
BANKING	AND COMMERCE Messrs:
Addison	Kelly
Armstrong	Kindt
Aiken	Klein
Asselin, (Notre Dame	Konantz, Mrs
de Grace)	Lloyd
Asselin, (Richmond-Wolfe)McLean	
Basford	Moreau
Bell	Monteith
Boulanger	More
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	Morison
Cameron (High Park)	Muir (Lisgar)
Chaplin	Nesbitt
Chretien	Nowlan
Cote (Longueuil)	Nugent
Cote (Chicoutimi)	Olson
Douglas	Otto
Emard	Pascoe
Flemming (Victoria-	Ryan
Carleton)	Rynard
Grafftey	Sauve
Gray	Scott
Gregoire	Skoreyko
Habel	Tardif
Hahn	Thomas
Hamilton	Thompson
Jewett, Miss	Vincent-50.
(Quorum-15)	
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Messrs:	
Basford	O'Keefe
Beaule	Olson
Berger	Pigeon
Cameron (Nanaimo-	Pilon
Cowichan-The Islands) Regan	
Crouse	Ricard
Drouin	Richard
Dube	Rinfret
Eudes	Rochon
Forbes	Rock
Francis	Rondeau
Frenette	Ryan
Gendron	Scott
Godin	Skoreyko
Gray	Slogan
Habel	Smith
Hales	Southam
Harkness	Stefanson
Lambert	Starr
Lessard (St. Henry)	Tardif
Loiselle	Tucker
McLean	Valade
McNulty	Wahn
Muir (Lisgar)	Winch
Noble Nowlan	Woolliams-50.
(Quorum-15)	
AGRICULTURE	AND COLONIZATION Messrs:
Armstrong	Bechard
Asselin, P.T.	Beer
Barnett	Berger

Bigg	Matheson
Boutin	Matte
Cardiff	McBain
Crossman	McIntosh
Cyr	Mullally
Danforth	Nasserden
Dionne	Noble
Drouin	O'Keefe
Emard	Olson
Enns	Ouellet
Ethier	Pennell
Forest	Peters
Forgie	Pigeon
Gauthier	Rapp
Gendron	Ricard
Groos	Rochon
Gundlock	Roxburgh
Hamilton	Smallwood
Harkness	Tardif
Honey	Temple
Horner (Acadia)	Thomas
Jorgenson	Vincent
Kindt	Watson (Chateauguay-
Konantz, Mrs.	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Laverdiere	Watson (Assiniboia)
Macaluso	Whelan
MacLean Mather	Willoughby-60.
(Quorum-20)	
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:	
Baldwin	Loiselle
Casselman, Mrs.	Mandziuk
Chapdelaine	More
Ethier	Morison
Forest	Pugh
Girouard	Rinfret
Guay	Rouleau
Horner (Jasper-Edson)	Southam
Kelly	Temple
Lessard (St. Henry)	Winch-20.
(Quorum-8)	
MARINE	AND FISHERIES Messrs:
Armstrong	Howard
Barnett	Irvine
Basford	Kennedy
Bechard	Lachance
Belanger	Leduc
Cashin	MacLean
Chatterton	MacRae
Crouse	Macquarrie
Coates	Mather
Cyr	McLean
Dube	Mullally
Flemming (Victoria-	Noble
Carleton)	Patterson
Foy	Rheaume
Girouard	Sauve
Godin	Stefanson
Granger	Tucker
Groos	Whelan-35.
(Quorum-10)	
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messrs:	
Alkenbrack	Deachman
Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe) Dinsdale	
Berger	Doucett
Blouin	Fleming (Okanagan-
Cadieu (Meadow Lake)	i Revelstoke)
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	Flemming (Victoria-
Cyr	Carleton)

Gendron	Martin (Timmins)
Godin	Martineau
Granger	Mitchell
Habel	Moreau
Harley	Otto
Herridge	Rheaume
Irvine	Rideout
Langlois	Roxburgh
Laprise	Simpson
Leboe	Watson (Chateauguay-
Leduc	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Loney	-35.
Maclnnis	(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Barnett	Lessard (St. Henry)
Basford	Lessard (Lake St. John)
Bell	Maclnnis
Chaplin	Mackasey
Chretien	McNulty
Cyr	Millar
Dionne	Mitchell
Foy	Muir (Cape Breton North
Frenette	and Victoria)
Godin	Noble
Grafftey	Orlikow
Gray	Regan
Greene	Ricard
Habel	Rideout
Irvine	Sauve
Knowles	Starr
Lachance	Stenson
Laverdiere	Weichel-35.
(Quorum-10)
Aiken
Cowan
Eudes
Forgie
Howard
Lambert
[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Langlois
Leduc
Martineau
Nixon
Paul
Rouleau-12. (Quorum-7)
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Messrs:
Balcer
Brewin
Brown
Cashin
Chapdelaine
Choquette
Deachman
Dube
Fairweather Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Forest
Gelber
Girouard
Herridge
Klein
Knowles
Konantz, Mrs.
Lachance MacEwan MacRae Macquarrie Mandziuk Martineau Matheson Nesbitt Nixon Nugent Pennell Regan Richard Rinfret Thompson Valade Walker
Woolliams-35. (Quorum-10)
ESTIMATES Messrs:
Armstrong	Boulanger
Blouin	Boutin
Standing Committees
Brown	Leduc
Cadieu (Meadow Lake)	Loiselle
Cameron (High Park)	Madill
Cantelon	Mandziuk
Cashin	Matte
Chatterton	McCutcheon
Coates	Muir (Lisgar)
Cote (Longueuil)	Mullally
Cote (Chicoutimi)	Nasserden
Danforth	Nixon
Douglas	Nowlan
Ethier	O'Keefe
Eudes	Orlikow
Fane	Otto
Fleming (Okanagan -	Perron
Revelstoke)	Peters
Forest	Pilon
Forgie	Plourde
Francis	Richard
Grafftey	Rochon
Guay	Rondeau
Hales	Rouleau
Honey	Roxburgh
Howe (Hamilton South)	Rynard
Howe (Wellington-Huron) Skoreyko	
Jorgenson	Stefanson
Kelly	Tardif
Korchinski	Whelan-60.
Lambert
(Quorum-20) VETERANS AFFAIRS
Messrs:
Bigg	Mackasey
Boulanger	MacLean
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	Matheson
Cameron (High Park)	Madill
Clancy	McIntosh
Emard	Millar
Fane	Moreau
Forgie	Morison
Gelber	O'Keefe
Greene	Perron
Groos	Peters
Harley	Pilon
Herridge	Prittie
Kelly	Pugh
Lambert	Rideout
Laniel	Rock
Laprise	Temple
Latulippe	Webb
MacEwan	Weichel
Maclnnis	Winkler-40.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Messrs:
Boutin	Loiselle
Cardiff	Macaluso
Choquette	Moreau
Clancy	Ormiston
Cooper	Pascoe
Cowan	Pilon
Drouin	Prittie
Ethier	Richard
Kennedy	Rochon
Lamb	Scott
Latulippe Laverdiere	Simpson-23.
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT (Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messrs:
Baldwin	Cadieux (Terrebonne)
Brown	Casselman, Mrs.
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Chatterton	Laniel
Choquette	Macquarrie
Cote (Longueuil)	Martineau
Crossman	Mullally
Enns	Ouellet
Fairweather	Pennell
Fisher	Rondeau
Honey	Wahn-21.
Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Mr. Walker moved: that the report be con curred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if the house will allow me to rise at this moment, I wish to say I have just learned that the Prime Minister has been admitted to hospital. I want to express, not only on behalf of the opposition but I am sure on behalf of all hon. members of the house, my hope that he will soon be restored to health and returned to the house.
I know something of the tremendous load of responsibility that rests on a prime minister. I realize that had the course of parliament been otherwise for the past few days, the Prime Minister probably would have entered hospital earlier. These are some of the things that those in private life do not understand, and foremost is the sense of responsibility that rests on one who has the office of prime minister. I want to extend to him the very best of good wishes.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, having learned just prior to coming into the house of the illness of the Prime Minister and of his being admitted to hospital, I share the sentiments that have been expressed by the leader of the official opposition, and on behalf of the members of the Social Credit party in this house I wish to assure the right hon. Prime Minister, his government and every member of his party of our concern at his illness, and we express our best wishes and prayers for his speedy recovery.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group join with the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Social Credit party, and I am sure with the government in expressing our sincere regret that the Prime Minister has found it necessary to go to hospital. I think we are all aware that had it not been for the very heavy burden he had been carrying in recent weeks, he would have gone to hospital much earlier.
I think it would be most appropriate if you, sir, were to convey on behalf of all members of all parties in this house our sincere regrets to the Prime Minister that he has found it necessary to be in hospital, and express to him our hope for a very speedy return to health and strength.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it would be the wish of the right hon. Prime Minister that I should rise at this time to express to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Social Credit party and the leader of the New Democratic party my thanks and those of the government for the very kind words that have been expressed by those who have taken part in this appreciation of the Prime Minister.
All I can say is that the task of carrying on in his stead will fall upon my shoulders, and I hope I shall receive the co-operation not only of those who sit on this side of the house but of all hon. members, so that during the time the Prime Minister will be in hospital, because what he will see happening in the house, his recovery will be that more prompt.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief statement on one or two housing matters. You will recall that in the budget brought down on June 13 my colleague the Minister of Finance referred to a lower rate of interest on National Housing Act loans, higher maximum loan amounts and larger loans in relation to lending value.
The new 6J per cent interest rate became effective, of course, on June 14. It applied to new loan applications and applications in process at the time of the amendment. The reduced rate was also made available to
C.M.H.C. borrowers where loans had been approved at the 6 A per cent interest rate and where the mortgage had not been registered. In the case of previously committed approved lenders loans, this is a matter for their discretion.

The governor in council has now approved new ceilings on N.H.A. loans. Until recently maximum N.H.A. loans were set by regulation at different levels for home ownership and rental housing. The maximums distinguish only between apartments and other types of housing. The maximum loan for any house or multiple family dwelling other than an apartment is increased to $15,600 for each unit having four or more bedrooms and to $14,900 for each unit containing less than four bedrooms, whether the dwellings are to be occupied by the owner or rented. The maximum loan for fully serviced apartment dwellings is raised to $12,000 per unit from $8,750. The increase also applies for rental loans and loans to home owners if the application for the increase is received prior to the interest adjustment date established in the mortgage document. On loans to builders the increase will be available if the application for the increase is received prior to the loan being fully advanced.
C.M.H.C. is ready to insure loans and make direct loan commitments, subject only to a provisional loan amount pending an amendment to the act. Here I refer to legislation already on the order paper and which, amongst other things, seeks authorization for N.H.A. loan ratios of 95 per cent of the first $13,000 instead of the present $12,000 of lending value. In the interval, and to avoid delays, C.M.H.C. and approved lenders have been authorized to establish loan amounts on the basis of the proposed amendment and to issue conditional commitments in the higher amounts.
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, the house has listened, I am sure, with some interest as far as we could hear the hon. gentleman, because of some confusion, to the details of the statement he has just made. I am sure no one realizes better than the minister himself that this is a very technical and complicated matter and certainly no one can deal with it objectively at this time, not having seen the purport of the statement he has just made to the house.
All I can say is that anything which assists in the development of the housing industry in this country, in view of the action taken recently by this government in curtailing it, will be very, very acceptable to the house generally. We will have to consider in detail the statement which has been made by the minister, and as far as the official opposition are concerned we will deal with it objectively when we have the measures before us.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make one comment on the statement that has been made by the
Consumer Credit
minister. It seems to me that the increase in the amount of money that can be borrowed, if we continue with the 11 per cent sales tax, will mean that interest will be charged on the increased loan plus the 11 per cent, and actually the result will be that the total cost will be twice as much as it would otherwise be. In other words we are going to have an increase here far beyond what we normally would have.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the measures announced by the minister sound as if they will assist certain income groups to buy new housing. We favour the measures. I agree with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that this must be viewed in the light of the 11 per cent tax on building materials. However, in itself this will assist some groups. We hope the government will continue to have in mind the need of housing for income groups which cannot meet the present loan standards. This is a great deficiency which needs to be remedied in this country.
(Translation):



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the French and English correspondence with the premier of the province of Quebec concerning the National Centennial Act.
(Text):



CONSUMER CREDIT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and report upon the problem of consumer credit, more particularly but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing to inquire into and report upon the operation of Canadian legislation in relation thereto;
That 24 members of the House of Commons to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee, and that standing order 67 (1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; and to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
1628	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I do not want him to think we have left him out of all consideration following the events of yesterday. Is the hon. gentleman now in a position to say whether there will be changes made in the imposition of the 11 per cent tax on building materials and production machinery? I need not point out to the minister that there is tremendous uncertainty across the country as to whether the government intends to proceed with this matter as stated by him when he introduced the budget, or whether there is to be a strategic retreat.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his kindly remarks in opening his question. I can only say to him that when the government has any announcements to make it will do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask a supplementary question, does the minister not consider, having regard to the tremendous unsettlement in construction and the like across Canada, that he should be in a position by now to say what is going to be done? Has he not consulted these three individuals, these experts?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to my answer.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's first answer, is he or is the government contemplating making a change?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Sfafe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is a rule of the house that questions are not to be put on the orders of the day about matters which are set down on the order paper for the consideration of the house. These are matters for debate at the appropriate time, and it seems to me that we should abide by the rules.


An hon. Member:: This is the appropriate time.


Mr. Speaker:: I should also like to remark that we have had considerable discussion on this point and it is becoming almost a debate. This is the question period, and I wonder whether we might go on to another question.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to another heading. Has the minister received representations from the graphic arts industries association of Canada with respect to the proposal to impose an 11 per cent sales tax on printing machinery and equipment? Is the government considering withdrawing this tax, in view of its effect on employment in the printing industry as well as in the publishing of newspapers and magazines?


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interrupt at this stage, it seems to me that this is a proper question for discussion on the budget resolutions rather than at this time.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we have no knowledge when the budget resolutions will be brought before the house. For all we know they might very well be postponed for weeks or months, and the questions are urgent in this regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency of the question and the fact that representations are being made to the minister, and I believe he is familiar with them, I feel he should be given the opportunity of answering the question.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I trust, as I intimated earlier, that we will be able to proceed with the orderly business of the house, and my respectful submission to you, sir, is that the last two questions have to do with matters which will be under consideration when the budget resolutions are before the house.


Some hon. Members:: When?


Lionel Chevrier: It is quite clear that we could go on interminably asking questions with reference to items which are or will be before the house in the budget resolutions. If these are to be allowed then it seems to me there will be no consideration of the items called last night by the house leader. With respect, and I say it again, it seems to me that the last two questions were of the order of those I mentioned earlier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, the Acting Prime Minister suggests that these matters can be discussed under the heading of the budget resolutions. It has not been indicated to us when the budget resolutions will be discussed. In the meantime these

matters are unsettling. As the Minister of Finance knows, it was only in recent days that those affected by the tax about which I have asked a question realized that the tax was there, owing to the wording of the resolution. I think in view of the unsettled situation which has arisen, in view of the concern and the fact that the house does not know when it will be dealing with the budget resolutions-it might not be until fall-the question is urgent and a proper one for orders of the day, and the Minister of Finance should be permitted to answer.


Mr, Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, on the point the hon. gentleman has raised, it seems to me that the rules of the house are very clear on the matter and that they should be applied.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the house leader when the budget resolutions will be coming before the committee of ways and means perhaps it would facilitate discussion of this matter. Perhaps he can tell us now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will do my very best to oblige the hon. gentleman, but before doing so perhaps I might add this point. Much has been made in the house recently about budget secrecy, and it seems to me that if the point is valid-and I think it is a valid one-any amendments to the resolutions should be brought forward at one time in an orderly manner when the resolutions are before us and should not be sought to be anticipated by questions on orders of the day, which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, being a very old and experienced member of the house, I am sure knows full well are out of order.
With respect to the budget resolutions, it is the desire of the government to get on with all its business just as rapidly as possible, and the more rapid the progress is with the business set down for today and tomorrow the more rapidly will we reach the budget resolutions which the government is more anxious, I think, to reach than any one else in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that I am an old member-


An hon. Member:: Very old.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I did recognize the willingness of the Minister of Finance to answer my question before all this hullabaloo was raised, and I put it to him again.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am putting my question in a different form. Have representatives of the graphic arts industry made representations to
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Finance, has he met them and has he considered their objections to the sales tax?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have been impressed by the representations made by the Acting Prime Minister and the house leader, and I think I should abide by their views unless you order me to do otherwise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are worse than your outside advisers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I may say so to hon. members, we are all very much interested in the important matter which has been raised, but on the other hand under our rules, which after all hon. members have themselves drafted and by which we are bound, it does occur to me that we are anticipating a debate and that this is properly a matter for debate at the time of consideration of the budget resolutions. Many of these questions are becoming repetitious; therefore I would urge hon. members that we take up other questions.
(Translation):


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question? In view of the many protests from provincial sources concerning the proposed federal program of assistance to municipalities, could the minister tell the house if he intends to withdraw Bill C-76?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question which is in order, I think, since it has nothing to do with the budget resolutions, this provision having been deleted from the budget.
Is the minister now in a position to inform the house as to the administrative considerations which forced him to remove the 30 per cent tax on the sale of Canadian
shares?


Mr. Speaker:: The other day I refused that question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the same question during the budget debate period but it was ruled out of order as that problem could be discussed during that debate. Now that the debate is over and that we are sure that the question will not come back on orders of the day or on the order paper and that we will have no other opportunity to discuss it, I feel it becomes relevant, precisely because of the explanations you gave the other day.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unfortunately I cannot agree with the viewpoint put forward by the hon. member. The proper place for putting these questions is during the discussion of the budget resolutions.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This question cannot be mentioned when discussing the budget resolution, because it was removed-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have listened to the hon. gentleman on the same point on three separate occasions on three different days- at least two that I recall, if not three. Therefore I would ask him to consider the matter settled until the budget resolutions come before the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, may I point out to Your Honour that since paragraph 11 of the budget resolutions has been withdrawn this will not be discussed in the resolutions now before the house. Therefore it would seem to me that an explanation ought to be given on the orders of the day or in answer to a question on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: If what the hon. gentleman says is true I fail to see the urgency of raising the question at all.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I feel that it is urgent to discuss this question, since-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am very sorry but the hon. member for Port Arthur has the floor.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we were asked to vote on the motion of the Minister of Finance relating to his budget. And in yesterday's order paper, reference was made to Hansard for June 13, the night when the resolutions were introduced by the Minister of Finance. Now, those resolutions of June 13 we were referred to, included section 11 of the Excise Tax Act and we have precisely voted yesterday to approve section 11 of that act, since that was the purpose of the vote being taken. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, either we carried section 11 of the Excise Tax Act, or we did not. If we did not, it has not,


for all that, been deleted from the motion, since yesterday's order paper still mentioned it as being an integral part of the Minister of Finance's budget.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, an hon. member should rise on a question of privilege only when a matter of privilege is involved. I respectfully submit there is no question of privilege at this time, since you have already decided that the hon. member's question had previously been asked at least twice. His question, therefore, was not in order. Furthermore, the resolution the hon. member referred to has not yet been officially withdrawn.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Acting Prime Minister? Can the minister tell the house whether the government received a copy of the non-confidence motion voted unanimously yesterday by the Quebec legislative assembly against the federal government, with respect to its proposed assistance to municipalities?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Would the minister tell us whether he will report to the house when he receives a copy?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is the practice nor the custom to report in such circumstances. If they send me a copy I shall read it on receipt, as I already read it carefully this morning in a daily newspaper of the province of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? With reference to the speech made in the house by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) last June 25, does the Minister of Justice think that Hon. Jean Lesage is a crypto-separatist?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think that question could very well be put to the person who made the speech.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct my question to the Prime Minister, but due to his regrettable illness and consequent absence

from the house I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. On Tuesday the Prime Minister, in replying to a question I asked about the delay in signing a general agreement for the acquisition of nuclear warheads by Canada, intimated that the delay was due to the United States. According to yesterday evening's papers the Prime Minister made a different statement outside the house. Southam correspondent Bruce Phillips, reporting from Washington, states:
Great gasps of relief issued from the administration today when Prime Minister Pearson corrected his hint that U.S. foot-dragging was delaying a nuclear arms agreement.
Will the Acting Prime Minister inform the house what was this corrected statement and why it was not made in the house?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the preamble to the hon. member's question, which was quite lengthy. Neither am I familiar with the main part of the question, but I think my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is more familiar with this matter, or the Minister of National Defence can answer it.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question to which my hon. friend directs the attention of the house will reveal, I think, that what the Prime Minister said outside this chamber was by way of explanation of what he said in the house. I think the statement made by the Prime Minister in the house as well as the explanation outside speak for themselves and they do not warrant the conclusion drawn by the hon. gentleman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to look into this matter and be prepared to give the house a better explanation than the one he has given as to why the statement made outside the house was apparently directly contrary to the one made within the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to my honourable, esteemed and gallant friend that there will be no point in delay. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is now in a position to answer any question that can properly be put to him by the hon. gentleman.



D.E.W. LINE-STATEMENT ON DISMISSAL OF CANADIAN EMPLOYEES BY U.S. COMPANY

Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked me a question with regard to the staffing of
Inquiries of the Ministry the distant early warning line, and I told the hon. member that I would take his question as notice.
The answer is that the civilian staffing of the distant early warning line is the responsibility of a civilian firm awarded the contract by the United States government for operation and maintenance of the line. The Department of National Defence is concerned to the extent of providing military personnel to ensure that the line performs the air defence function for which it was established. These military personnel are not involved in any interchanges between the contractor managers and contractor employees. As far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, no official reports have been received concerning the alleged staff reductions. As has already been stated in the house, rates of pay for civilian employees of the company concerned must be approved by the Department of Labour.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question in his role of minister of cultural affairs, if I can put it that way. My question is based upon the fact that the budget did not give any assistance to Canadian periodical publishers and that the end of the sales tax exemption is causing them harm. If I may interpolate, Mr. Speaker, I find that you have a number of assistants down here on the other side, and I should like to ask you to protect the person asking the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Perhaps I might take the opportunity to remark that these gentlemen should learn that they also serve who only sit.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; the hon. member has the Sergeant-at-Arms right beside him for protection if he needs him.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether the government is giving consideration to early assistance to Canadian periodical publishers, in view of the information I have that Maclean-Hunter, for example, insist that they may have to put their two magazines out of circulation at once.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, although I do not believe I have ever asked for it in the house, I hope I will

Inquiries of the Ministry be given protection from interruptions, similar to that accorded to the meek and mild hon. member for Port Arthur. I listened with interest to his speech, sir, in which it was hard to discern any question. There were several expressions of opinion, several conjectures about matters that might or might not happen, but out of the verbiage I gathered the hon. member wanted to know whether the government was giving consideration to what I might loosely call the O'Leary report.
Well, the O'Leary report was made by a royal commission to another government which was still considering it on April 22, and we have had only a short period in which to consider it. There was no legislation whatever presented-


John George Diefenbaker: It was being held up by the opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is rather evident where most of the disorder in this house is, sir. The matter dealt with by the O'Leary commission is, as I believe the Prime Minister pointed out in answer to a question not so many days ago, under very active consideration by the government which is very well aware of the urgent national importance of the problem to which it relates.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister or are his officials prepared to issue a clarification on the sales tax exemption matter which would affect the publishing industry, including the daily newspapers?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. member that representatives of the industry are currently meeting with the officials of the department.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members, being in such a good mood, would allow me to remark that if questions should be short, I believe replies should not be overextended.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is to the Secretary of State, and I apologize for not having given him notice of it but the matter just came to my attention a few minutes ago. Is the Secretary of State aware that a referendum is being taken amongst the 2,000 members of the association
[Mr. Pickersgill.)
of Canadian television and radio artists concerning the withdrawal from service of their members from the C.B.C. at midnight on June 30, by reason of differences that have arisen between that organization and the corporation? If the minister is aware of this, would he care to make a statement to the house about this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I received a telegram yesterday. I thought I had it with me, but I am afraid it is in another folder. However, I believe I recollect fairly accurately what was in it. It was from the head of the association of employees and artists, but I do not recall the precise name of the organization at the moment. The telegram informed me that their contract expired on June 30 and that there seemed to be some difficulty about the negotiations they were carrying on with the C.B.C. The suggestion was that I, as a friend, should mediate.
I inquired at once of the C.B.C. about the matter and was informed that the two parties were still engaged in collective bargaining. I am sorry to have to say something about this in the house before I have had an opportunity of replying to the telegram, which I intend to do as quickly as I can. I feel that as long as the two parties are engaged in direct negotiations it would not be proper for any mediation to take place. I am very hopeful that there will be a solution by the two parties, and I am sure the hon. gentleman would share that hope.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay Wesf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister, and I apologize for not giving him notice. It is a question of immediate national importance. I have only just been handed a telegram from Victoria. In view of the announcement today by Premier Bennett that the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia in respect of the treaty was clewed up yesterday-those are his words-and that the cabinet was to approve an agreement today, has the Acting Prime Minister any comment to make?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure that nothing has been glued up so far as the Columbia is concerned. In any event, since this matter is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will ask him to deal with it.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: I know nothing of the alleged statement made by the premier of British Columbia. I can only say that the negotiations, referred to some days ago, are under way and it would not be proper at this stage to reveal their character.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that correspondence I have received clearly indicates that Dr. Shrum, co-chairman of the British Columbia hydro authority, gave the power committee of the Vancouver board of trade certain information with respect to recent discussions between representatives of the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia on the proposed Columbia river treaty, does the minister not consider that the members of this house, in view of this disclosure, are entitled to the same information?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing, of course, of the alleged disclosure to which the hon. gentleman directs our attention. I can only say that I do not regard it as proper or desirable to reveal the nature of these negotiations until they have been completed.



PEACE RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Justice. It arises out of a reply I received from the Minister of Public Works last week. Has an opinion yet been formed in his department as to the legality of the province of British Columbia continuing construction of the Peace river dam without having obtained approval under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, while I remember the question, I am afraid I will have to take this as notice and inquire further.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the minister consider having the opinion made available to hon. members, having in mind the views held by his party when on this side of the house, and particularly the strong opinion held by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Lionel Chevrier: I would have to remind the hon. member that repeatedly, when our friends opposite were on this side of the house, we were refused legal opinions, and it is not generally the practice to table them or to make them public. However I shall see 28902-5-104
Inquiries of the Ministry what the position is, and perhaps in due course will be able to make some statement.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. In view of the commitment made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to have their musical ride take place at Delhi on July 1, can the minister tell me why this event has been cancelled?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the question which my hon. friend has asked me is-


An hon. Member:: It is urgent.


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to say it is urgent because of the fact that the musical ride was to have taken place on July 1, and I think the hon. member is entitled to an explanation as to why it is not taking place. The explanation is that a virus has affected the horses which take part in the ride to the point that they are unable to take part in any exercise. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I regret very much to have to advise my hon. friend that it will not be possible for the musical ride to take place in Delhi, and on behalf of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police I express my regrets to him.
(Translation):



USE OF WARRANTS IN BOTH LANGUAGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
Has the minister the results of an inquiry he was to make in the case of the man Thibault, of Hull, with regard to the R.C.M.P.'s use of bilingual warrants and briefs?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this question, I have a rather lengthy answer, and, as it seems important to my hon. friend, I shall now give it to the house:
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Why not just put it on the record in Hansard?
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that I put the reply on the table of the house. Therefore, if the hon. member for Lapointe has no objection, I shall do so right now.
1634	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, concerning the request made earlier by the Minister of Justice to put his reply on the table of the house, I suggest rather that it be put on the record.


Lionel Chevrier: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The statement is as follows:]
On November 23, 1962, a motor vehicle registered in the name of Richard Thibault was given a ticket for illegal parking on parliament hill. Two warning tickets had been delivered to the owner of the said motor vehicle for other traffic offences on federal property. The two warnings and the last ticket were written both in French and English.
Then, an instruction was filed on December 5, 1962 with the magistrate's court in Ottawa. Summons in English, to appear on December 19 was addressed to Mr. Thibault by the clerk of the court. Mr. Thibault did not appear on December 19. The magistrate ordered that a copy of the summons be personally served to Mr. Thibault. The next day, the first summons sent to Mr. Thibault was returned by him accompanied by the following words:
"Write to me in French. I am from Quebec". The clerk of the court asked a bilingual member of his staff to telephone Mr. Thibault to explain the contents and circumstances of the summons. Mr. Thibault informed them that he would not comply with the summons, because it was not written in French.
It should .be noted that a warrant of arrest issued by the court and delivered by the municipal police of Ottawa in view of arresting Mr. Thibault, was then already in existence. I have been told that Mr. Thibault was holding seventeen unpaid tickets for having violated the traffic rules in the city of Ottawa, which tickets, of course, are not under the jurisdiction of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
On April 1, a municipal policeman of the city of Ottawa personally delivered a summons with regard to the traffic violation committed on November 23, 1962, on federal property. Mr. Thibault did not answer the summons and he was told that a warrant of arrest issued by the court was held for his arrest. Moreover, he was informed that if he appeared of his own free will, that warrant would not be carried out. He did not appear.


Subsequently, a bilingual officer of the R.C.M.P. telephoned Mr. Thibault to discuss the matter with him and offered to discuss it in French. Mr. Thibault stated that he was doing very well in English, but that he would have nothing to do with any document written in English.
On May 10, the court warrant was duly signed by Mr. J. Rochon, justice of the peace in and for the district of Hull. No step was taken to execute until June 18, 1963, and Mr. Thibault had every opportunity to change his mind.
On June 18, a bilingual officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police came to Mr. Thi-bault's house to execute the warrant. Mr. Thibault answered the door, he was informed of the contents of the warrant and immediately asked whether it was written in French or English. The reply was that it was written in English and the officer asked him to accompany him. Mr. Thibault closed the door in the face of the officer. Another R.C.M.P. officer who was in the area joined the first one and both tried through the door to discuss with Mr. Thibault who refused to come to the door.
Sometime later, three men came with movie projectors and a mobile unit of a local radio station appeared on the site. The officers were wondering whether they should execute the warrant for arrest, and contacted their office for instructions. They were advised to come back and not to execute the warrant at that time.
I was told that the magistrate court in Ottawa as a practice serves all local summonses in English, but that bilingual interpreters are available to give assistance to any person in need of such a service. The serving of local summons obviously comes under the jurisdiction of the Ontario government.
The facts of the case are therefore that Mr. Thibault, after two warnings, received a traffic ticket. The subsequent procedure and the serving of summons were in accordance with the procedure in the Ottawa magistrate court. At the present time there is a warrant for his arrest issued by the court for offences on federal government property. That warrant will be executed in due time. I understood that another warrant had been issued for his arrest on seventeen counts of traffic violation within the limits of the city of Ottawa.

(Text):



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforf-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of urgency for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence may I direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs since he was the agriculture critic when sitting on this side of the house. Since only one month remains of the 1962-63 crop year, and since the northeastern area of Saskatchewan has on the average a very low grain delivery quota, would the minister use his office to have the delivery quotas increased in this area, and also see to it that the railroads provide sufficient cars to make room available for these quotas?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this question obviously should be directed to some other minister, but because of my well known collaboration with the hon. gentleman in doing something about rape seed I should at least acknowledge the question and refer it to the proper minister.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO PERSONNEL OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question concerning the proposed royal commission on biculturalism, but first I wonder can he tell us whether the premier of British Columbia has yet replied to the Prime Minister's letter of May 15 on this subject?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would have to inquire, but my understanding is that there has been an oral reply on this matter.


Robert William Prittie: Then may I ask, in view of the great interest about the personnel of the commission, will the government announce the names of the members within a week, even if the premier of British Columbia does not submit a reply?


Lionel Chevrier: 1 am afraid I shall have to give the usual reply that in due course the Prime Minister or Acting Prime Minister will make the announcement.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of 28902-5-104J
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Justice. Does the Department of Justice intend to make any investigation to clarify the role of some prominent Canadians as security risks, as a result of their association with Dr. Ward, personal sponsor of Christine Keeler of Profumo fame?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[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 Labour. My question deals with the boycott of the Canadian grain ship the Howard L. Shaw, held in a Chicago port since April 22. Could the minister advise the house what steps he or his government have taken to end this flagrant interference with the right of Canadian vessels?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult on orders of the day to outline in detail the various steps that have been taken in the past several weeks to assist the owners of this ship to load it, but as my hon. friend knows, the court in Chicago recently issued a restraining order which would have had the effect of allowing the ship to be loaded if the workmen or union members had respected this restraining order.
They have to this date not respected the restraining order, with the result that the ship has not been loaded, but at the present time I understand the national labour relations board is considering what further steps might be taken in a legal way. Yesterday the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Labour were both in touch with their counterparts in Washington, outlining once again the urgent nature of this question, and asking that everything possible be done. I am hopeful that these further representations will have effect.



PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF URANIUM MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would he inform the house what action has been or will be taken to provide assistance and employment to the many workers in the Bancroft area who are unemployed because of the closing of the Bancroft uranium mines this week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand that an announcement has already been made-


An hon. Member:: Where?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -with regard to giving assistance in the matter my hon. friend has in mind.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that three weeks prior to the election on April 8 full page ads appeared-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: -stating that if Mr. Pearson were elected he guaranteed to keep the mines open-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members must know the rules as well as I do. I do not think that is the proper way to act. That is taking a certain advantage of the Chair, and it is not appreciated.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which relates to the answer the minister has just given. In view of the fact that the proposed stockpiling which was announced outside this house in regard to the uranium mines will only extend the life of the mines concerned for a few months, can he say whether the government is considering helping the uranium industry by arranging production loans as requested by the industry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I might say, Mr. Speaker, as a preamble to my answer, that while I am interested in giving any information that I have, this matter is not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour. In response to the second part of the question, this would naturally be a matter of policy that would be announced at the appropriate time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister why this announcement regarding uranium stockpiling was not made in the house, and whether it can now be made in the house so we will have the full details of the government's plan to assist the uranium industry?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have the statement here and I think I understand why it was made outside the house. It was made to the chairman of the committee which was charged with the investigation of the economic status of Elliot Lake and the chairman of the industrial committee of the Bancroft and district chamber of commerce. That is probably why the Prime Minister made this statement. However, I should add-


An hon. Member:: Government policy
should be announced in the house.
[Mr. MacEachen.!


Lionel Chevrier: -that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who unfortunately is not here today; otherwise he would have dealt with it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Acting Prime Minister advise us as to the financial commitment made by the government in this stockpiling program?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot add anything to the statement that has already been made. I am sure it has been circularized, and I will be glad to send a copy to my hon. friend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Acting Prime Minister would agree that a statement of government policy ought to have been announced in this house rather than outside it. Surely the details of this policy ought to be available to hon. members, and there should be some responsible minister who can now give this information to the house.


Lionel Chevrier: I had understood that this matter was made public, Mr. Speaker. However, if it is the wish of the house-


An hon. Member:: It was made public?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it was circularized.


An hon. Member:: Where? Not in the
House of Commons.


Lionel Chevrier: However, Mr. Speaker, if it is the wish of hon. members I shall be glad to read the statement which I have before me now. The statement made by the Prime Minister is as follows:
I am happy to inform you that the government has developed proposals designed to maintain employment in your community. They are proposals to provide for further uranium production until next summer so that alternative sources of employment can be developed meantime.
The production of uranium has declined sharply in recent years and, under present contracts, a further sharp decline will take place in the course of this summer and next winter. The government has carefully examined the possibilities of maintaining production and employment in the uranium mining industry by means of a stockpiling program. The eventual prospects for a revival in world demand for uranium are good. But, as far as can now be foreseen, the revival will not be fast enough or large enough to justify a full stockpiling program meantime. The stocks accumulated would be of such size, in relation even to the reviving demand, that they could exert a depressing influence on the price of uranium for many years. Extended stockpiling therefore would not be in the national interest.
The government however recognizes that it has a duty to help provide a breathing space during which alternative sources of employment can be

developed in the communities affected. Past uncertainty and lack of action have created a situation in which the further adjustment these communities face cannot be made smoothly.
The government accordingly announces that strictly as a short term measure it is prepared to buy, and to stockpile, the quantities of uranium that will enable certain mines to maintain present employment until July 1, 1964 at prices which will cover the operating costs of the mines to that date. The companies concerned have been informed of this offer and the government believes that satisfactory arrangements can be negotiated with them. When this has been done, the proposal will be put before parliament for approval.
The three mines affected are Milliken and Denison mines at Elliot Lake and Faraday mine at Bancroft. These are the mines which could continue to operate economically but which, under present contracts, will close at dates between next month and the end of the winter. The communities concerned will therefore be able to rely on the continuation of present employment until the end of the next school year.
This decision is an expression of the government's declared general policy for facilitating industrial adjustments. The government is meantime vigorously exploring the opportunities for alternative employment that may be developed in these communities during the next twelve months. To attempt to bring this search to a satisfactory conclusion will be a priority activity for the department of industry, and its area development agency, whose establishment the government has proposed to parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question-


Mr. Crouse:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I say first that it seems to me an amazing innovation that an important statement like this should be made by means of a circular sent out by the Prime Minister and not divulged to the House of Commons. Could I ask the Acting Prime Minister, does this mean that the assistance forthcoming under this announced plan will be applicable only to the uranium companies named in Ontario and will not be applicable to the uranium companies in Saskatchewan operating in the Beaverlodge and Uranium City areas?


Lionel Chevrier: As the hon. member has noticed, Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned the mines and I take it these measures apply only to the mines mentioned in the statement. However, as I said earlier, the matter is one which falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who I am sure will be glad to deal with it tomorrow.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is not very often I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, but I should like to support what
Inquiries of the Ministry he has stated in the house today and endorse his stand that this statement should have been made here, because-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -because I have myself placed on the order paper question 399 on this subject, a question which remains unanswered.
(Translation):


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister being absent, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
Could the Minister of Justice tell us whether in order to prevent unemployment, the policy of assistance to uranium development could be extended to other industries which might later find themselves in an identical situation?


Lionel Chevrier: The only answer I can give my hon. friend is that there is already on the order paper, in the name of the Prime Minister, a bill concerning the creation of a department of industry, which would, among other things, be responsible for helping the underdeveloped areas in this country.
(Text):


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister and ask him if he would investigate and report to the house on what the private uranium industry is doing to sustain employment in the industry, in view of the fact that they have received some two and a half billion dollars in government contracts from which I understand they have made some $400 million in profits.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a gratuitous statement on the part of the hon. member. I am not able to say whether or not it is accurate. In any event I will direct his question to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George Clyde Nowlan: In view of the statement made with respect to the uranium mines, I am sure the Prime Minister must have discussed this matter with the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could tell us what is the financial commitment for keeping open these mines under the terms of the announcement made.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: A supplementary estimate will be presented in due course.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is the Minister of Finance not in a position to tell the house roughly what will be involved in the commitment which

Inquiries of the Ministry has been assumed by the government without communicating with the House of Commons?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not think it would be very helpful to give a rough estimate.


George Clyde Nowlan: On a question of privilege, that would certainly be in keeping with all the other estimates the minister has given us up to the present.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with the situation on the docks in Vancouver. We all of course realize the seriousness of the situation in so far as the shipment of wheat and other products is concerned. Is he in a position to give a reply as to the present position of the negotiations, and to express the hope that a settlement will be arrived at so that serious damage will not be done, particularly to the wheat board in disposing of its wheat?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of representations on this particular point with reference to the impact that any contemplated strike might have on shipments from the west coast. The situation at the present time is that both parties are in the midst of contemplating further contact, and officers of the Department of Labour are standing ready on the west coast to offer their assistance at a time when it might be felt this assistance would be useful. But up to the present time no indication has been given to us that any outside help of that kind would be useful. I think maybe tomorrow the situation will be more clarified.


John George Diefenbaker: Is tomorrow the date, the final date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The indication is that strike action might be contemplated after Friday evening, but if such strike action is undertaken there will still be the week end when it might be possible to put into effect this outside assistance.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question


to the Acting Prime Minister in view of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. On May 21 on orders of the day a resolution concerning the Department of Agriculture was presented to the house to set up two ministers, one for the east and one for the west. Last Saturday a Winnipeg newspaper reported the Minister of Agriculture as saying this was government policy and would be dealt with at the appropriate time. Then he went on to say:
It has not been discussed yet in cabinet.
I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would consult with the Minister of Agriculture and find out the truth or otherwise of this statement; and if it is true, then what is this subject matter doing on the order paper?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure there must be some misunderstanding. The matter that is referred to in the question of the hon. gentleman certainly could not be on the order paper had it not been under discussion in cabinet and I am sure there is some confusion.
(Translation):
[Later:)


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the answer he has just given mean that the Minister of Agriculture does not attend cabinet meetings?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture attends all cabinet meetings, when he is in Ottawa, and since the present government came into office, he has been here at least 90 per cent of the time.
(Text):



INQUIRY AS TO LOANS TO TOBACCO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture; perhaps his parliamentary secretary, in the minister's absence, will take it as notice. Is it the intention of the government to discontinue the granting of loans from the Farm Credit Corporation to tobacco farmers?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: I will be happy to take this question as notice and bring it to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.

Inquiries of the Ministry
VETERANS AFFAIRS	ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE



SUGGESTED INCREASE IN MAXIMUM ADVANCE UNDER LAND ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the increased cost of house construction caused by the 11 per cent sales tax, which the Canadian Construction Association estimates at $800 per house, is the minister considering an increase in the maximum advance under part 2 of the Veterans Land Act?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can accept the premise of the hon. gentleman's question. If he were to write it out so that one could understand it-


An hon. Member:: So that you could understand it.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: -perhaps I could give him an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I can settle the question very quickly. The hon. member was offering an opinion and advice; he was not asking a question.
(Translation) :



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the neglected minister of the Liberal government, namely the Postmaster General, whom the budget seems to have consigned to oblivion. My question relates to the summer holidays which are starting now and I should like the minister to tell us whether he intends to urge postmasters and officials of his department to encourage the employment of students who would like to work during the long vacation rather than accept the regular applications.


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, if the Post Office Department requires the students' services, it will surely use them.


Georges-J. Valade: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Has the minister the intention to recommend-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The original question should have been put on the order paper. Having asked it and having received a reply, I think the hon. member should leave it at that.



TYPE OF AIRCRAFT TO BE SUPPLIED TO YEMEN CONTINGENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the
Minister of National Defence now in a position to answer a question I asked him on Tuesday in regard to the type of aircraft to be used by the R.C.A.F. contingent in Yemen?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisler of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday, the hon. member for Calgary North asked a question which I took as notice concerning the types of aircraft which have been supplied or are to be supplied to the R.C.A.F. contingent in Yemen.
On June 22 an air transport unit was formed in support of the United Nations Yemen observer mission. Aircraft from this formation are being provided by both the R.C.A.F. and the United Nations. Two R.C.A.F. Cariboo aircraft have been transferred from the United Nations emergency force at El Arish to this transport unit. In addition, the United Nations have supplied three Otter aircraft from the Congo which have been airlifted to Aden where they are being assembled by R.C.A.F. technicians and will be flown by R.C.A.F. crews to Yemen. One R.C.A.F. Otter has been temporarily transferred from UNEF to Yemen but will be returned as soon as the UN Otters are in service in Yemen.
It has also been proposed that the R.C.A.F. maintain and operate three United Nations helicopters which are presently located in the Congo. The R.C.A.F. now have a small team of technicians in the Congo examining these helicopters to determine their airworthiness. A final decision on R.C.A.F. acceptance of this helicopter commitment is being withheld pending the receipt of this technical evaluation.
To replace aircraft withdrawn from UNEF, a Dakota in Canada is being prepared for transfer to El Arish. This aircraft should be available for ferrying by approximately July 15. In addition, a Cariboo aircraft is being transferred from Trenton to El Arish effective July 8.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: My question concerns both the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works. Since the Minister of Public Works is in his place I will direct it to him. It has been brought to my attention that oil well casings left in

Inquiries of the Ministry Long Point bay, lake Erie, by drilling companies are becoming dangerous to small boats using the bay. This could be due, in part, to the low level of the lake which means that some of these casings are just below the present water level.
Will the minister endeavour to see that these oil well casings are properly marked by buoys, or take other safety measures for the protection of the boating public? This is an urgent matter because the bass fishing season opens in this area over the week end and hundreds of boats will be on the bay. Many lives would be in danger should these boats run into the unmarked casings.


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: I shall have to take this question as notice. As soon as possible I will answer it.
(Translation):



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question.
Would the minister, having, I think, received an engineering report on the world fair site, tell the house whether a definite choice has been made with regard to St. Helen island or not?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, this morning I received additional reports from the engineers who had been employed to that effect by the city of Montreal. Those reports were forwarded to the engineers of the department and, as I said last week, a meeting of all interested parties is soon to take place. If possible, I shall report to the house in the first week of July, when I have communicated with the interested parties.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my question has already been asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm. We are still expecting a reply from the Minister of Public Works.
(Text):
I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs-



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. On June

18 the Prime Minister indicated that he was prepared to seek a legal opinion on the validity or otherwise of the appointment of certain persons to perform special services in the Department of Finance. The Prime Minister agreed that when this opinion had been obtained it would be tabled. Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us if the opinion is now available and when it will be tabled?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The Prime Minister brought the question to my attention. I think I was absent from the house when it was asked. I have requested the officials of the Department of Justice to look into it. The matter is under study now and as soon as I have a report I shall be glad to make a statement.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister of northern affairs a question based on the announcement of Hon. Rene Levesque that Quebec has withdrawn from co-operation with the water resources commission. I would ask the minister what were the reasons for such withdrawal, and if there is any hope of having Quebec reconsider this matter.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that this is news to me. I have had no indication from Hon. Rene Levesque or from any other participant in the resource ministers' conference that this is the case, and I sincerely hope it is not the case.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, just so that it does not look as though I had fabricated it, I got the information from a well known Montreal morning English newspaper.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to amplify an answer given on Tuesday last to a question by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni concerning the use of Pacific Western Airlines by members of the R.C.M.P.
I said when I answered the question that I understood the strike was not recognized as a legal strike. I now find that my informants were under the impression that the strike affecting Calgary and Edmonton points on

the air line was separate and distinct from the strike of stewardesses and traffic employees of Pacific Western Airlines which originated in Vancouver. I would further amplify my answer by saying that if the strike in question at Calgary and Edmonton is the one affecting stewardesses and traffic employees, then the strike is legal in the sense that the required procedures under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act were completed before the strike commenced.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Does that alter the government's decision not to have the R.C.M.P. use an alternative route for transportation?


Lionel Chevrier: I am _ afraid I will have to ask the commissioner to look into that matter.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week the hon. member for Northwest Territories asked me what was the intention of the government with respect to the furtherance of the bills providing for creation of the new territories of Mackenzie and Nunassiaq. It is our hope that we can proceed at the earliest possible moment with the resolutions, have the bills printed, and thus enable members of the House of Commons and members of the territorial council to study them. The council is meeting at Inuvik on July 8 and I think it is imperative that they be provided with copies of the bills before that time. Whether the bills should then be referred to a special committee of the house, as he suggests, is a matter for discussion and determination by the House of Commons.
(Translation):



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm asked me yesterday whether I could comply with the wishes of Ville St. Laurent concerning employment at Canadair.
In reply, I wish to inform the hon. member that two weeks ago, my colleague, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau), planned a visit of the mayor of Ville St. Laurent to Ottawa so that he could make direct representations to the minister.
28902-5-105
Establishment of Industry Department
The Ville St. Laurent council will be in Ottawa next week and I shall be pleased to hear their representations in the interest of all parties concerned.
(Text):



INDUSTRY


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. C-74, respecting the department of industry.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill No. C-74 is to establish a department which will be concerned with fostering effective economic growth and development in manufacturing industry, as outlined in sections 6 and 7 of the bill. At present, Canada's manufacturing industries provide direct employment for more than one and a half million Canadians. They also create work for the many persons who are supplying materials and facilities to manufacturers. The government intends to place more emphasis on this important sector of the economy.
Traditionally, the prosperity of Canada has depended to a considerable degree on our abundant natural resources. The development of production and trade in the products of our farms, fisheries, forests and mines has been responsible for much of Canada's economic growth. In recognition of the importance of these activities, specialized departments of government have been established to work with these primary industries in order to encourage their growth on an efficient and effective basis.
The new department of industry will concentrate on the needs of manufacturing industries and will assist them in taking advantage of opportunities for sound economic development. At this time, there is probably a greater need than ever before for such a department. Canada's labour force is growing rapidly and will expand at an even faster rate in the years ahead. Many of the additional entrants to the labour force will have to find employment in manufacturing industries. Concurrent with the growth of the labour force, the accelerated trend to automation and other technological changes emphasizes the need to create new employment opportunities for substantial numbers of workers.
In recent years, we have heard a great deal about the emigration of many of Canada's skilled workers-scientists, engineers, designers and other professional and technically-skilled people. The cost of training such workers amounts to many millions of dollars each year. Many leave Canada simply because the opportunities in technically advanced industries are often greater in other
1642	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department countries. Accelerated development of manufacturing industries in Canada can help to keep these people usefully employed in Canada.
Over the past decade, the pace of technological progress in secondary industry in the more industrially advanced countries has been increasing rapidly. Progress over the next decade is certain to be even more rapid. As a result, Canada must place greatly increasing emphasis on fostering technological and economic development and growth.
The world trend to expanded trade in manufactured goods also stresses the need for effective growth in secondary industry. More and more, successful trading nations will be dependant upon vigorous and efficient manufacturing facilities as a basis for expanding their trade. Furthermore, the initiatives at present being planned to achieve an additional freeing of world trade will result in benefits for those countries which can produce competitively. On the other hand, countries which do not encourage effective development of their manufacturing industries will face increasing difficulties in meeting competition in home and export markets.
The department of industry will have a major role in implementing the government's policies to encourage effective growth and development of manufacturing. It will initiate and carry out a wide range of activities to assist manufacturing industries in improving their ability to be effective and competitive producers. In carrying out these tasks the new department will maintain a close working relationship with every sector of manufacturing. To accomplish this, the new department will have groups to work with each manufacturing industry.
The department of industry will, of course, work closely with other federal departments in implementing activities to assist manufacturing industries. It will be especially closely related from the outset to the Department of Defence Production which has been concerned with the industrial development of the defence production sector of Canadian manufacturing. It is essential, therefore, that there be very close co-operation between the two departments. The need for such a close working relationship is strengthened by the fact that the role of the Department of Defence Production is being currently reviewed in the light of the Glassco commission recommendations about consolidated government purchasing.
As the bill provides, there will be one minister who will be responsible for both departments. He will be in a position to bring about co-operation, avoid duplication of activities and achieve a meshing of the resources of the two departments. There is a


very close relationship between procurement and industrial development. For example, the Canada-United States development sharing program stresses product development and has led to the development of new exports and employment opportunities in Canada.
The government also recognizes that trade and industrial development are closely related. For this reason the department of industry will work closely with the Department of Trade and Commerce, as do other departments with specialized interests. For example, the departments of mines and technical surveys, agriculture, fisheries and forestry have special responsibilities for the growth of specific sectors of the economy. However, each of these departments also cooperates closely with the trade department in developing export markets.
It is also recognized that the provincial governments have definite responsibilities for industrial development. For this reason it is intended that the new department should work very closely with the provinces. In order to provide for effective liaison between the department and provincial governments and industry in the various regions of Canada, it is proposed to establish a number of branch offices in main regional centres.
Under section 7 (a) of the bill one of the principal responsibilities of the department will be to acquire a detailed knowledge of every aspect of manufacturing industries. Because of the increasingly close interrelationships between industry and government effective liaison is of vital importance. The department will, therefore, acquire detailed knowledge of the problems of industry and will be in a position to work closely with industry to assist in eliminating obstacles to growth and efficiency.
An important part of the liaison between the department and industry will be to provide manufacturers with a better understanding of the services which are available from government departments. These services, most of which are not available in industry itself, can often greatly assist manufacturers in overcoming problems or in finding new production opportunities. The department will seek to ensure that these services are used to the fullest extent.
Under the provisions of section 7 (b) the new department will promote the establishment, growth, efficiency and improvement of manufacturing industries in a number of ways. First, the department will assist industries to identify products which have been imported into Canada in volume and which could be manufactured in Canada on an efficient and competitive basis. In other instances it will provide information and will

Establishment of Industry Department authority to authorize and direct departments, branches and agencies of the government to undertake special measures as may be appropriate to facilitate economic development in designated areas. As a result, it will be possible to plan and implement coordinated programs involving the facilities of a number of departments. The agency also will work closely with provincial governments and regional bodies in developing and carrying out its program.
If the department of industry is to be effective, it must be in a position to acquire the services of personnel who are highly knowledgeable of the various sectors of manufacturing industry. Furthermore, it is urgent that the department have competent personnel, with specialized industry knowledge, as quickly as possible. In many instances, personnel with this type of background are not at present available in government. As a result, it will be necessary to obtain the services of a number of personnel from outside the public service during the initial stages of the department's development. Section 5 of the bill will authorize the department to employ such highly qualified persons on a temporary basis until permanent career staff can be recruited and trained in the regular manner. This special authority will terminate on December 31, 1964.
It is highly desirable that the new department should be in a position to obtain the advice of persons in industry, trade associations, organized labour and universities who have extensive background and experience in matters relating to manufacturing industries. This is particularly important in order to ensure that there is close co-operation between industry and the department. Section 15 authorizes the governor in council to appoint advisers and committees for this purpose. It is envisaged that advisory committees will be established which can be consulted respecting major activities of the department.
Through the type of activities which I have mentioned, the department of industry will have an important role in Canada's future economic development. By working closely with manufacturing industry, it will be intimately aware of industry problems and be in a position to assist effectively in their solutions. It will be concerned with technical and scientific development and the competitive advantages which Canadian manufacturers can obtain through the application of new technology. Equally important, it will be able to help manufacturers become aware and take advantage of new production and marketing opportunities. In this way, the department will be making a valuable contribution to the development of a strong and vibrant Canadian manufacturing industry.


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: I assume, Mr. Speaker, that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had been able to be present he would have presented the government's statement on second reading of this bill. While I appreciate the minister's efforts very much, I regret that the Prime Minister has not been able to be present.
The minister gave a very detailed description of the bill, and it is this description that frightens me. In my opinion the bill illustrates the position I took during the budget debate to the effect that this government is looking towards a completely planned economy. I shall have more to say about this on some of the detailed clauses.
I was not present, unavoidably, during the debate at the resolution stage. I have, however, read all the speeches that were delivered at that time. The debate on the resolution was started, I believe, on June 7, was interrupted and then completed on June 14. There were a lot of good speeches in that particular debate but, in my opinion, one stands out. I refer to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. More). This speech stands out because the hon. member cited actual experience during the latter years of the war which illustrated the useless waste of time that another bureaucracy can bring about. This is what I am afraid of in relation to this bill. The hon. member described his experience with a clothing establishment and described the waste of material and extra cost which resulted from certain directives.
The bill is now before us, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the fears of many hon. members, expressed at the resolution stage, have now been confirmed. Perhaps these comments should have been made during the committee stage, but I should like to point out that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in their report of the 92nd annual general meeting, do recommend a department of industry; but the general manager of that organization, Mr. J. C. Whitelaw, Q.C., added these remarks:
This role amply justifies the government proposal to establish a full cabinet voice for the manufacturing industry through the designation of a minister and department of industry.
But he says:
At the same time, the association has made it clear that it does not advocate the creation of yet another ministry and department, believing that the appropriate ends could be accomplished by reorganization and re-emphasis of existing facilities.
This recommendation has not been followed, Mr. Speaker, and I firmly believe it should. I believe we are setting up another bureaucratic organization which may well affect the living habits of industry in Canada to a degree where they may regret it.

We now have the bill before us and I have examined the clauses carefully. I do not intend to comment at length on the clauses at this stage because other speakers will also be addressing you on the contents of this bill. However, I do suggest we will be giving very careful consideration to the clauses of the bill as it is examined in committee. There are many clauses which will be examined quite closely. Clause 5 makes provision for the calling in of outsiders. I am wondering if we are going to have more of the three wise men from Toronto. In my humble estimation this is a very dangerous possibility. It may lead to lack of confidence in the civil service, lack of confidence in those now in the Department of Trade and Commerce who are going to be transferred to the new department of industry, and also lack of confidence in those serving the Department of Defence Production which is to be absorbed in the new department.
Are these people going to be the theoretical types? In his statement the minister said he would bring in some university people. University people are good people, but I hope he certainly gives prior consideration to those who have actually had to make a living developing industry. There is no doubt that the Minister of Finance has advocated the bringing in of what I call these wise men, but I think he has found out to his sorrow that such a step has not worked advantageously. I would hope the designate minister of industry will not allow that to happen in the new department.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I almost suspect some of that particular theoretical type of help in the drafting of the bill. I can just see the new department commencing operations. First of all it will probably start a survey of all types of industry in Canada. Doubtlessly this will be just to get their names on file. Then the department will start a breakdown to distinguish by group, by size, and possibly by class of business. I can see the building up of a clerical system so, that despite what the Prime Minister said on resolution stage, that this was to be a department to give advice, it will become one of the greatest bureaucratic involvements in which the government has become mixed up.
After a breakdown, possibly by size or possibly by class of industry, I can see what will happen next. All sorts of circularization and questionnaires will be sent out, causing industry more headaches and much higher costs. I can just see the ideas for more and more involvement of industry in this department, sprouting like wildfire in the minds of these people who are to be brought in.
27, 1S63	1645
Establishment of Industry Department
Despite what the Prime Minister said on resolution stage, that there would be no conflict of interest with the provinces, I am afraid such conflict will be demonstrated very early in the existence of the new department. With respect to the area development agency, covered in part II of the bill, 1 would point out that today the province of Ontario has this very thing in being. Will there be duplication in this respect? I can see some legitimacy, some need for something of this sort in certain areas, but I would like to know just how the area planning agency will work in with the arrangement now in force in Ontario.
Apparently very extensive powers are to be given to the new department, and a few moments ago the minister stated that other departments can be directed to do almost anything the new department suggests or thinks should be done. I am afraid of that clause. I am frightened of clause 11, as it appears to me that some official may well start telling industry what it must produce, the quantity it must produce, where it must operate, and so on. We shall have to be very careful in analysing the clauses of the bill, and we will have to get very careful and full explanations in respect to them.
Another thing which worries me somewhat is that the commissioner for area development is to report directly to the minister instead of to a deputy minister, and we will want to know just how the deputy minister of industry and the commissioner for area development will co-ordinate their efforts. Could there not be a conflict of interest between them?
I am also worried about clause 14(a). Will it be possible to get privileged information under this clause which might not otherwise be available? May the department request privileged information from other departments? We want to know exactly how far this clause commits the government, the people of Canada and industry. We must be given more explanations than the minister has thus far given in his opening remarks, and questions will be asked in due course when we come to the examination of the individual clause.
I do not like the bill, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it should be before us. Instead I think we should be setting up an industry branch under, if you like, a renamed department of trade and industry. To me this would be sufficient to give all the required information and advice. In fact it has been and is being done to quite an extent. Some years ago when the previous government set up a small business branch it was found to be of great value to small businesses throughout Canada. Also the efforts which, in the latter years of

Establishment of Industry Department the previous government, were put into developing world trade could be developed and built up within the present department. All of these things have led me to believe that there should be a branch established dealing with industry, and not a new department.
In turn this would coincide with the wishes of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
I think they see the pitfalls. They have stated so; and when I say that, I mean they did not advise a separate department but just a branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. To me this would be reasonable.
I do not think I have any other matter to mention at the moment, except to say that the whole gist of the bill frightens me in that in the long run it is tending to build up another bureaucracy and another headache for industry. I just pray this does not happen.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our group, I would like to say what we think of the bill which has just been submitted to us by the minister who would eventually head the new department which is to be set up.
We, of the Social Credit, consider that the Canadian government is somewhat like a huge trust company with branches throughout the country, of which every Canadian is in fact a shareholder, either by birth or by naturalization. Consequently, I think that we have a certain right in this respect, and that the government's intervention in that field might help create new industries or, at least, give some guidance to firms in need of help, or rather technical or scientific assistance, which it would be possible to give them.
There are obviously some tragic things in our time. If we examine the relevant statistics, we find that within five years, more than a million new jobs will have to be created in Canada. Moreover, according to the speech from the throne, if I remember rightly, an average of 200,000 new jobs a year will have to be created.
On the other hand, I know that within three years automation will put about 15 per cent of the workers out of their jobs, and it has even been forecast that within five years, more than 25 per cent of our industrial workers will be dismissed because of automation.
We therefore have an extremely serious problem to face, because those fellow citizens, those heads of families, will have to find jobs which will enable them to support their families.
[Mr. Monteith.J
Yet, we know that there are many products we are unable to absorb at this time. Indeed, anybody can check the fact that many products remain unsold.
In several areas of industry, not to say in almost all of them, there are large stocks of products which remain unsold because Canadians do not have the money to purchase them. And all hon. members have been able to notice that in many instances. Canadians certainly do not have enough money to purchase the current production.
I agree that we must still think about creating new industries to manufacture products we do not produce at present. There are certainly many new productions we could undertake. For instance, I recall very well that a few years ago, in the Saguenay area, an important visiting economist stated that our area could accommodate over 100 industries using aluminum as a raw material. We have in our area the largest aluminum production plants in the world, and nothing is manufactured on the spot. One only has to look in the warehouses and the stores to see that there are thousands of aluminum products.
Furthermore, an industry in my riding closed down in the years 1930-1935. Yet, it would be very easy to go there and pick up molten materials by truck to bring them on the site, which would considerably reduce the cost of the products to be manufactured. Instead of using ingot aluminum, they could get it in molten form and very easily manufacture it.
This is why I am taking the liberty of suggesting to the minister that he could take this opportunity to help in our area by creating the advocated regional agencies, because we should process our raw materials, which are abundant. I believe that the regional agencies suggested in Bill C-74 may eventually encourage the establishment of new industries in our area.
Now, I hope that this department will be more efficient than some others that I have seen in operation or that, after having been set in motion, seem idle and inoperative.
I know that in the province of Quebec fine plans were made, nice programs were conceived concerning industry and commerce. But it happens that no really tangible results have been achieved at the present time.

So, I hope that this department will not be an idle department, but a department that will achieve material results, because if it is made up only of civil servants without any industrial or selling experience, without any technical experience, it will be difficult for them to achieve anything. I believe indeed that in all achievements, in all projects, you need men with practical experience.
Now I find that department will be distinct from the Department of Defence Production, which is already under the authority of the present minister. If the idea originally was to have the two departments merge, the present Department of Defence Production with that of industry, it could truly be said that we should arrive at something which would allow a really serious program to be set up, because I honestly believe those two departments ought to become one.
If I may be permitted to offer a few suggestions, Mr. Speaker, for instance I think we could include in that department of industry everything that concerns production, even the Canadian crown corporations, that is all crown corporations which produce something. Those corporations should be under the control or authority, if you prefer, of the proposed department of industry.
Thus we have Atomic Energy of Canada and many other crown corporations, such as the Polymer Corporation, which manufacture all sorts of things. Finally, those industries must be under the control of the department of industry.
There could also be a merger of anything which concerns the distribution of goods, so that it may be under the control of the Department of Trade and Commerce, because at the present time that department is concerned exclusively, or nearly exclusively, with exports. In my opinion, the Department of Trade and Commerce is a department of distribution while the department of industry is one of production. The department of production deals with production in all the fields of raw materials that one can think of, while the Department of Trade and Commerce is that of distribution and marketing. And distribution must take place. Besides, when we consider the operation of the Department of Trade and Commerce we note that it deals practically with foreign countries only whereas the Minister of Trade and Commerce should remember that Canadians are consumers who could, if they had the money or the capital needed, consume a national pro-
27, 1963	1647
Establishment of Industry Department duction worth between $20 and $30 billion more than the present one. According to the latest statistics, it seems that our production has reached about $40 billion. And yet, in view of our present population, we could easily consume over $60 billion a year. But, as I said, Canadians do not have the money needed to buy the products.
I have already said in a previous speech that more than 700,000 families get only $35 per week. With $35 a week, one cannot even buy the essential consumer products. A family of five or six children needs at least $60 or $65 a week for food only. That means that Canadians have no money at the present time.
So the intended minister of industry will have to be in constant touch with his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to see that production arrives at destination, that is to consumers. That is one of the most important points in that field, because it would be useless to produce and produce if we do not find a way to have this production consumed.
That is why, as I said at the beginning, we consider Canada as a huge management company in which all consumers are stockholders through birth or naturalization, and it is with that intention that we, Social Crediters, say that a dividend should be distributed to all Canadians, as with corporations that show a profit every year-when a company shows a profit, it pays dividends to its shareholders and nobody takes exception to that. It is quite normal. But when we of the Social Credit speak of dividends, some people are shocked. They think this is impossible. Well, if it is possible for an ordinary manufacturing industry, I wonder why it should be impossible for a government which is a huge management company with thousands of branches all over a vast country like Canada.
Now, we must consider that this department must not interfere with provincial rights and that in all research, inquiries, or the various interventions made here and there, it will have to work in close co-operation with the provinces, after consultation with them.
Those are a few ideas I wanted to express, Mr. Speaker, on the establishment of this future department which, if it is properly established and managed, will allow a greater industrial growth in Canada, having always in mind this basic idea that production must
1648	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department reach the consumers and that Canadians want to consume that production. But to do so, they must have money in their pockets. Our vicious and crafty financial system does not allow Canadians to have the necessary money. Let us establish a financial system which would neither be ridiculous, stupid nor foolish as our present one and Canadians will have the required money to buy Canada's production.
(Text):


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the second reading of this bill setting up a department of industry. I was amused to hear some of the things which have been said during this debate by spokesmen for the official opposition because I recall that remarks and criticisms of this type were made by speakers on behalf of the opposition in former days when a different government was proposing to set up a new department. There is a great deal of similarity in the arguments used.
I think this government will find itself in serious difficulty no matter what happens. They are now being charged by the opposition with being determined to go deeply into economic planning and development. They will be blamed for that, though 1 do not think they have ever seriously considered doing it. Nevertheless, they will be blamed, though they will derive none of the advantages which would follow a real attempt at economic planning. There is a crude expression which suits these circumstances very well, and the government might well find itself in such a position.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said the other day that this new department would be to industry what the Department of Agriculture is to the farmer. This point of view was expressed again today by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury) who mentioned two other departments which are somewhat similar in nature, inasmuch as they deal with basic resources-the Department of Forestry and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. He also mentioned, I believe, the Department of Fisheries.
As one who comes from an inland area, I cannot speak about the Department of Fisheries and the benefits it may bring to fishermen. However, I do come from a mining area and I can say that very little advantage flows to our miners as a result of the activities of the department of mines. Neither, as yet, anyway, has much advan-


tage come to the forestry industry in my area because of the establishment of the Department of Forestry.
It is surprising to find how little relationship these departments sometimes have with the fields they represent. There is no doubt the department of mines has some of the finest buildings in Ottawa under its control. It has a large and competent staff in the department. In my area we have many problems in mining. I represent the largest silver mining community in the world and this community has for years been in serious difficulty because the department of mines, or Canada as a whole, or the industry itself have not been able to solve some of the problems which surround the production and sale of silver. It is true one can pick up a paper and see, for example, that the United States is in dire need of silver and that industry throughout the world is in need of this scarce metal. Yet we have not been able to solve the problems which arise in the area where the silver is produced. The fact is that great developments either in prospecting or in production have simply not taken place. Even the silver we produce here has to be shipped out of Canada before it is refined. Yet we are told we have one of the greatest laboratories in the world under the control of the department of mines in Ottawa.
I am using this as an example to show that unless we really know what we intend to do about an industry we can set up all the departments we like and talk about as many schemes as we wish but, in the end, nothing of practical value will have been achieved.
One thing that bothers me about the present bill is this: the minister has not yet told us what the relationship of the department will be with the economic council of Canada. Two or three years ago, the Conservative government took a forward step by setting up a council to do exactly the same as this new economic council of Canada will presumably be doing. In the period between then and now we have not really decided what the functions of this council are to be, or in which sphere it should operate. Yet, today, we are being asked to set up a department of industry to put into effect the advice which is given by the economic council of Canada. It also occurs to me that the department may find difficulty in producing enough funds to help new industry establish itself successfully.
I was interested to hear speakers preceding me talk about the advantage which Canada has in possessing certain raw materials in great abundance. I was reminded of another important industry in my area. I am thinking of cobalt. Countries such as Belgium

have established huge industries based on cobalt metal. Yet in Canada we have not even considered it worth while to develop what would be a strategic material if a future war were to be waged, and upon which rockets and atomic weapons would depend. To do this would take money, and I think it is the intention of the government to put some money at the disposal of the department of industry to assist those areas where development has not already taken place. Without any finance or provision for finance this department will be of no value at all.
I am sure the minister will say that we can ask for grants when we put forward a specific proposal, but I am thinking of some of the grants which have been given in my area. Some disgraceful things have happened in the gold mining industry just because we have never faced up to the problems. I would say that there is not one farmer in the country who could not tell you about some disgraceful things that have happened resulting from short term propositions where particular items of agricultural production were subsidized without giving consideration to other aspects of the industry. I believe this department, as the minister has said, will have to develop new industries. I think we owe a great deal of gratitude and certainly some credit to a gentleman who at one time held the portfolio of trade and commerce, Mr. C. D. Howe, for some of the things he did with regard to crown corporations, such as the Polymer Corporation. There is not a free enterpriser in this country who is not envious of the Polymer Corporation because of the fact that it has been so successful. It was completely beyond the free enterprise concept of development in the initial stages. Since then these people have not been willing to take corporations even when they were "given away for a song" as happened in the optical development industry and others. 1 think these are fields in which the department of industry will have to engage.
We have, Mr. Speaker, many resources in this country still untapped. The other day I talked to a prospector. I was interested in some advertisements I had seen concerning collectors of rocks and the large amount of money made by some of these people who look for a piece of rock which is valuable for use in other than the mineral sense. The man who stumbled on this development, which is near Perth, set up a new industry producing marble. This marble is now sent to Italy. Italian industries buy this Perth marble, to which they have given the great name of Rideau marble. A number of prospectors must have passed over that because they were only interested in gold, silver, copper, or some such mineral.
Establishment of Industry Department
There are many forms of industrial development of which advantage could be taken with the natural resources available to us, but they require development by the government. I agree that this could be done better by a department of industry than by the Department of Trade and Commerce. There always appears to be an advantage in specialization and having a mining department to handle mining and a forestry department to handle forestry. But there is no reason why they should not all be handled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and companion departments created but without any names. That would produce the same result, and there is a psychological advantage.
We are continually being asked to subsidize some form of industry in Canada or to give some handout; but this is not to get an industry started, to do the necessary development, or to train people to operate the industry. We are asked to give handouts to sell products which have been developed. I think this is not what we are asking for in the establishment of a department of industry. This is actually what has been done in the Department of Agriculture. The other day a farmer asked me why it was that 40 or 50 weed inspectors in his area were not able to go to the Department of Agriculture to find out which weed killers kill which weeds, and have the department give them a demonstration. They were not able to obtain that kind of assistance. But if they had asked for two or three cents more on eggs, then they would have at least had a sympathetic hearing and a favourable reply, either now or in the future. Therefore what we want is assistance to develop new industry, and this will take money which must be set aside each year.
The minister mentioned that many of these things were contemplated, and I believe it is the intention of the government to pursue them. I presume the Department of Defence Production has lost a great deal of its impetus since the war, having been built up into quite a large department. I would say that it is not an unreasonable request to put two departments under the one head. I for one express regret that we do not have the former deputy minister of defence production to assist in the development of this new industry.


An hon. Member:: He is coming back.


William Arnold Peters: I understand he is coming back, and I hope that is true, because I found him to be a very energetic young man and one who I think would be interested in getting the wheels of this new department turning as fast as possible.
There are many other phases of this question, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to

Private Bills
speak on, but I will reserve my remarks for the clauses. There is only one matter I would mention about which I hope the minister will do something. I sympathize with the new attitude of the Liberal government in bringing in people from outside for a short period of time on a temporary basis, but I disagree with it entirely. I disagree for this reason. Some of these people who are brought in are no doubt the best brains available. But if they are brought in, I suggest that they be employed in that position and given the status of civil servants so they can be retained. We should give them that option so that they do not represent companies outside, and so that they will be able to give their wholehearted attention to the department they are assisting.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-19, to incorporate the union of Slavic churches of Evangelical Christians and Slavic Baptists of Canada.-Mr. Smith.


Douglas Mason Fisher: the second reading of Bin No. C-15, to amend the Railway Act (responsibility for dislocation costs).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a small amendment to a very important act, the Railway Act, but if it were accepted it would make a tremendous change in the operations of the act and the operations of the board of transport commissioners. I believe that the bill deserves support not just for the general idea that it embodies but for the good consequences that would flow from it.
It would be preferable to me, in view of the wide interest in the bill by railroaders across Canada, that the bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Last year the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), who was then minister of transport, indicated that this was in the mind of the government of the time, but because of the collapse of parliament this was not possible.
The fact that there is a lot of interest in the bill can be proven by the interest that members of the house in the last parliament and this parliament have shown in it, and

by the fact I have had letters from almost every province in Canada from railway workers and railway unions asking that it be implemented or, if not implemented, referred to the standing committee.
The railway association of Canada, which as most members know is made up of the management of the large railways, has examined the bill. It did this last year, and I want to be as accurate as I can. According to the information given us by the president of Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon, when he was before our committee last year, the railway association was prepared to rebut the bill or to put its case against the bill. Therefore if the bill went to committee it would be possible to have before the committee representatives of the railway unions, certain railway communities and the railway association so that what is concerned in the bill could be examined in a very fair way.
I should like to put it to hon. members, if they are unaware of the fact, that there has been tremendous discussion over the years within railway circles about sections 181 and 182 of the Railway Act. There have been various interpretations and arguments put forward in that connection and the national legislative committee of the international railway brotherhoods year after year after year has come before the government and asked that changes be considered.
The factors that have created the demand for reconsideration can be placed in their roughest terms if one looks at the 25 year synoptical history of the Canadian National Railways as revealed in their last annual report. We find that in 1957 this railway had 124,000 employees. In 1958 the number had dropped to 113,000, in 1959 to 111,000, in 1960 to 104,000, in 1961 to 99,000 and in 1962 to 97,000. The Canadian Pacific Railway, the other major railway in Canada, and the smaller railways have had a similar dropping off in the number of employees.
This dropping off in employees reflects the tremendous changes in the make-up of the work forces and the drastic alterations in the work pattern. As a matter of fact, an employee on the maintenance of way force today is in a much different position from an employee just 10 or 12 years ago. This is so because there has been such a rapid reduction in the work force, there is so much more area for these people to cover, and there have been so many shifts. There is no area in Canada today where there is more insecurity than among railway workers.
Much of this insecurity has tended to fasten around an antagonism toward the heads of the railways, Mr. Crump and Mr. Gordon. I want to give an example of this inasmuch as I have been accused of leading

such antagonism. I wish to make the point that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) is credited with making the statement during the last election campaign on the platform in the town of Dryden in northwestern Ontario that after April 8 when a Liberal government took over the railway workers would not need to worry because Donald Gordon would be fired, and there would be a new sympathetic head of Canadian National Railways.
I have also noticed that there is speculation at the present time that the present Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Chevrier) is going to become president of Canadian National Railways. I do not know whether that would have happy consequences for him because it is quite obvious that being the president of the railway in these days, when the work forces and the communities that depend upon railways are so worked up over their insecurity and technological change, does not hold out a very promising future for the head of such an organization.
Before I become too sympathetic with the Acting Prime Minister, if he should assume the role, or Mr. Gordon or Mr. Crump, I should like to say that this problem needs to be approached with relative detachment and I think the railway brotherhoods have done that very well. I received a letter last fall from James F. Hutchinson, a barrister who looks after the preparation of legislation and legal material for the railway brotherhoods. He referred to this particular bill which was before parliament last session and he sent me a brief that he had prepared to be presented to the cabinet. In essence it has been put to the cabinet and I thought that if I put it on the record it would make the legal difficulties apparent and explain to hon. members the reasons that a calm consideration of these two sections is required. I might also say to hon. members that just the other day the brotherhoods presented a brief to the cabinet. I have not received a copy yet, but I think that as members of the house we all will, and I understand that this material is contained in their presentation. Mr. Hutchinson's argument in part runs this way:
Section 182 of the Railway Act provides as follows:
"The company shall not, at any time, make any change, alteration or deviation in the railway, or any portion thereof, until the provisions of section 181 are fully complied with, nor remove, close, or abandon any station, or divisional point, nor create a new divisional point that would involve the removal of employees, without leave of the board: and where any such change is made the company shall compensate its employees as the board deems proper for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence necessitated thereby."
Railway Act
I think that any hon. member reading that would say to himself that this is a tight, coherent section that means something. What have been the consequences that have flowed from it? I continue my reading:
Section 181 hereinabove referred to will be found at appendix "A".
Section 168 provides:
"The company may abandon the operation of any line of railway with the approval of the board, and no company shall abandon the operation of any line of railway without such approval."
On June 26, 1958, the Supreme Court of Canada heard a case styled "The Brotherhood of Railway Employees, James Guy McLean and J. L. McGregor (appellants) and the New York Central Railroad Company (respondent) and Canadian Pacific Railway Company and Canadian National Railway Company (intervenants)." That case dealt with an order of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada authorizing the New York Central Railroad Company to abandon its operation of the line of railway of the Ottawa and New York Railway Company, and authorizing the Ottawa and New York Railway Company to abandon its line of railway which extended from Ottawa to the international boundary near Cornwall, Ontario.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you know where that is.
The employees sought compensation under section 182 for being required to change their residence. They were denied compensation by the board, and the latter was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Justice Cartwright in a dissenting judgment stated as follows:
"The claim of the employees appears to me to fall within the words of the section construed in their ordinary meaning. The company has in fact removed, closed or abandoned every station and divisional point which was situate on the abandoned line. Those of its employees previously employed at any station or divisional point thereon who have been retained in its employment have been removed to other situations in its railway system and it has been necessary for them to change their residence. The section does not appear to have been drafted by a meticulous grammarian; but it is reasonably plain that what is conditionally forbidden by that part of the section commencing with the words 'nor remove' in the fourth line, and, if permitted, gives rise to the right of compensation in such a removal, closure or abandonment of a station or divisional point as would involve the removal of employees and necessitate a change of the residence-
In my opinion, neither the arrangement of the sections in the Railway Act nor the history of the legislation furnishes sufficient reason for failing to give to the words of the section what appears to me to be their plain and ordinary meaning".
That is the end of the quotation from Mr. Justice Cartwright's dissenting opinion.
Unfortunately, Mr. Justice Cartwright wrote a dissenting judgment and the rest of the court found that the application by the railroad company for leave to abandon had been properly made under section 168; consequently no compensation was payable to the employees by virtue of section 182.
Mr. Justice Rand stated in his judgment:
"Both in 1933 and in 1939 the question of compensation was present to the mind of the draftsman of the legislation and yet there is not a

Railway Act
word in either statute or in the Railway Act by which compensation resulting from abandonment, apart from a 'measure, plan or arrangement' between the two systems, is provided for. If that had been the intention in relation to either the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific or any other railway acting independently under section 168, it would have been the simplest matter to provide so. It could have been done by the mere statement that the provisions of section 182 shall be deemed to apply, where the facts warrant it, to abandonment under section 168; but that step was carefully avoided. The case is one in which a feature of compensation has not been brought within a statutory provision and this court is powerless to supply it".
Then, Mr. Hutchinson goes on as follows:
It is my respectful submission that when legislation is such that two judges of the calibre of Mr. Justice Rand and Mr. Justice Cartwright cannot agree on its interpretation, an amendment should be made to the legislation. It is my submission on behalf of the brotherhoods which I represent that compensation should be provided for employees in case of abandonment and therefore I request that this committee recommend to parliament-
And so on. He goes on with his recommendations.
Now, if hon. members would look at the explanatory note in connection with this bill they would see that the purpose is to provide that railway employees, who lose their employment as a result of changes beneficial to a railway, shall be compensated by that railway for the cost of rehabilitating themselves with new skills that are saleable in the labour market; for the cost of removal expenses to a new job; pension compensation for early retirement, if that is the better plan; or such other compensation as the board deems best for the restitution of the discharged employee. A secondary amendment widens the changes contemplated by the section to include freight or express offices.
I might say, in connection with the secondary amendment, that was introduced because of plans the railways are implementing now under which they are pulling together their freight and express operations-rationalizing as it has been called-and this affects a tremendous number of employees across the country.
The general question that one might ask in relation to a hard and fast rule or law that would require a corporation to pay compensation is, what are the precedents? What does this involve? Is it putting too big an onus on the railways? This, Mr. Speaker, is something the railways need to have an opportunity of demonstrating. It is quite apparent from the announcement we had in the house yesterday -or perhaps it should have been made in the house-regarding uranium mines, that it is a conception accepted by the present government that when an industry is threatened with collapse there should be efforts made. We

had another example in the extension of coal subventions for a five-year period. As I have said, the announcement was an indication that there should be efforts made to support those people and to help them out. I have heard all the talk about the dirty dogs on the prairies who are supposed to have received too much from the overly generous previous government. I have regretted the interpretation that people outside the west are putting upon the assistance that has been given to the prairie farmers. I mention it to show that we now have accepted in a sort of piecemeal way the fact that someone should bear the responsibility for the dislocation, the wiping out of jobs, the wiping out of things that people have spent a lifetime building up, when events that are beyond their scope and beyond their planning take place.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, without being dogmatic about the particular wording or the virtue of the wording of the particular change that I have made, I feel that putting this before a committee and allowing for representations by a wide group that would care to come, we would be given an opportunity to deal with one of the current, lively problems that face railroaders right across the country. If the amendment or something like it were finally accepted it would, in a sense, almost be the adoption of corporate and governmental responsibility that is being accepted in this day and age when we have the effects of automation and technical change upon personnel and employment habits.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this Bill No. C-15, I must say that I support it. I have had quite a bit to do with railway problems which, in the past four or five years, have been brought to my attention quite prominently by railway workers as a result of the continual shifting of railway policy and railway jobs. As was mentioned by the sponsor of the bill, employment on the railroads has been going down. Job security is one of the prime interests of workers on the railroads today, and they are vitally concerned about their position with the two major railroads in Canada.
We have from time to time in this house passed legislation which has had to come up for review and amendment, because as that legislation was applied to the economy of the country we found that it was not accomplishing the purpose for which it was intended. Sometimes we have found there were loopholes in this legislation which needed attention. It is my firm belief that when the Railway Act was first drawn up it was the intention of the legislators to provide compensation to employees for any financial loss. Section 182 states:

-and where any such change is made the company shall compensate its employees as the board deems proper for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence necessitated thereby.
To me this is clear; but as the previous speaker pointed out, Mr. Justice Rand and Mr. Justice Cartwright could not agree on what was meant by financial loss. Therefore when we have two noted judges who are in disagreement on a piece of legislation enacted by this house, it is certainly time that legislation was re-examined and brought before a committee of the house where the loopholes could be plugged, to bring about a greater amount of security for the workers and to ensure that they be compensated for financial loss due to shift or movement of railroad operations.
In my area there have been a number of continual movements affecting railway stations and divisional points. Divisional points are a very vital issue across western Canada, and indeed across all Canada, and the railroads have attempted to get around the provisions of section 182, which state that no divisional point shall be done away with without leave of the board and without compensation for the employees involved.
The railroads get around this provision by leaving one partial train crew at a divisional point. The point is operated by a skeleton crew until the entire crew is pensioned off, and then the divisional point slowly fades out of existence. This is what happened at Big Valley, Alberta, which was a divisional point on the C.P.R. system. Practically all the operational crews were moved out of Big Valley in the early 1920's. One crew was retained and was given a small amount of work, until finally the members of the crew were pensioned off and the point slipped out of existence. In such a case the board would not have to compensate the workers under section 182 as it now stands.
This has happened in many prairie towns. I am thinking of one in particular, the town of Mirror, where a good many years ago the railway bought the townsite and encouraged the railroad workers to buy land, settle there, and invest their savings in the town of Mirror. In those days it was maintained that the town would grow in importance; but what has happened since then? The railroad is slowly trying to do away with that town, so far as the divisional point is concerned.
Railroad workers who have invested their savings and their lifework in such towns are now finding that their land and home values are dissipating, and are practically worthless so far as resale value is concerned, because of a shift of divisional points or railroad operations generally. I do not suggest that
Railway Act
all shifts of railroad operations be stopped. I realize that with dieselization coming into effect we must be prepared to adjust to new situations, and the amendment suggested by Bill C-15 would allow for a proper adjustment with guaranteed compensation to the workers.
It is my belief that this house, or a committee of the house, should take a very close look at this crucial and anxious problem. Just the other day I asked the Minister of Transport a question pertaining to divisional point run-throughs. I asked the minister would he take it upon himself to consult the C.N.R. and stop any proposed run-throughs until the next wage negotiation contracts were up. He replied no, that he did not feel this would be a proper undertaking for him to give. That illustrates part of the uncertainty which railroad workers are facing. They do not know if this falls under their wage contracts, whether it should be a part of railroad management, or just exactly where it falls.
The proposed amendment embodied in Bill C-15 would go a long way toward creating a certain amount of guaranteed compensation and a certain amount of security in railroad employment. A few years ago if a worker had 10 or 12 years seniority with a railroad he had a certain amount of security, but today 10 years seniority is not enough to guarantee any security.
It has been pointed out previously that there are now something like 97,000 people employed by the railways, compared with 120,000 a few years ago. What the hon. member is seeking in his proposed amendment to section 182 is a certain amount of security in compensation, and I wholeheartedly support him in suggesting that the bill be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, where both sides of the argument could be heard. In that committee we might come up with an amendment similar to the one in this bill, and which would accomplish the same end.
I conclude by saying I certainly think this should be referred to a committee, and the committee should review it as a matter of urgency in order to bring some clarification to the act. Such clarification would be very beneficial to all railroad employees across Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 is most significant and we readily agree that it should be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, so that it can be fully looked into.

Railway Act
If we duly keep in mind what has happened over the last ten years, we find that railways have modernized locomotives. I remember very well that in 1959, in Quebec, it was decided to make some changes on account of automation and over 50 locomotives even had to be sent to Montreal in order to be serviced. At that time, of course, some workers from Quebec, who had been with the railways for a number of years, had to be transferred to Montreal. Others had been laid off, since there was no outside work for them.
As late as April 15 last, in Limoilou, certain changes had to be made, with the result that further Quebec employees had to move to Montreal, and eight of them had to be laid off for lack of work.
Though we may not be personally averse to automation, we must not forget that some workers have been sacked, and have thus experienced a sharp drop in their living standards.
That is why it is essential that the bill be referred to the committee on railways, so that all its clauses and possibilities might be explored, in order that the company might direct its employees to other sectors, thus avoiding a recurrence of the undesirable patterns of the past.
I have before me some resolutions passed by various union locals against the railways' decision to dismiss some of their employees in a near future.
If we take a look at the lower St. Lawrence region, we will find that over there they have adopted the "master-agency" system, resting on a master-agent. This method is being given a trial around Moncton, and if it proves successful, it will be used from east to west. This would mean that nearly 1,300 workers and employees of the C.N.R. would lose their jobs, and that their families would naturally suffer.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is most important that this bill be referred to the railways committee so that the employees who are laid off may find work in other fields and may have a minimum of security.
Automation is a very good thing but we must look after the employee, who is an asset for Canada; if we are concerned only with automation at the expense of workers, we will be faced with serious problems.
The house adopted last year a bill to assure the mobility of labour in the industry, and I think that charity begins at home. So, we must provide labour mobility within crown corporations as well as within industry.

So, Mr. Speaker, we entirely agree that this bill be referred to the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee for a more thorough study.
(Text):


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which merits consideration, and I am indeed happy to rise in support of the principle, which will provide a measure of compensation to railway employees when the railway management decide on changes which may be beneficial to them, but which could work a real hardship on the employee if it involves removal from one location to another or a change of job. The purpose of this amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) is to provide that railway employees who lose their employment as a result of changes beneficial to a railway shall be compensated by that railway for the cost of rehabilitating themselves with new skills, etc. This will also affect the non-operating employees of the railway.
During the past few years there has been a concerted move to effect so-called savings by unification of railway services of one kind or another. At the lakehead, in Fort William we have seen the unification of the telegraph offices which are now being jointly operated as one. This is contrary to statements and promises made at the time-this happened about two and a half years ago- that it would not mean loss of jobs, when protests were advanced against the amalgamation. The truth of the matter was revealed later, after the deal was consummated. It did mean loss of employment and loss of opportunity for some of those who had been in the telegraph service of the two railways. Years ago Sir Edward Beatty, who was president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, initiated a movement of amalgamation of the railways. He travelled up and down the country speaking in support of this idea which, to the credit of the government of Mackenzie King, was successfully resisted; and as far as I am concerned, any such move should be resisted now.
From time to time we read comments, statements and editorials suggesting that competition for railways is no longer required. I wish to quote an editorial which appeared in The Nation's Business magazine as an example of the thinking of some people in the country at the present time:
It is most difficult to demonstrate that there exists now a need for two railway systems in Canada. The alternative to the continued payment

of subsidies is to wind up, by government action, the railway undertaking of either the C.N.R. or the C.P.R.
This plea for railway amalgamation, which comes from transportation specialist Richard Rohmer, Q.C., at least has the decided virtue of freshness and bluntness.
The editorial continues:
The rail problem is one which in Canada has had a minimum of hard, twentieth century thinking. For a long time the two rail system has been widely defended or tolerated on the assumption that in the rail industry, as in other industries, competition is a vital working force in maintaining maximum incentives to efficiency.
That view was justified in bygone days when the railways had what amounted to a monopoly in long distance transportation. But given competition from new ways of moving goods and people, the theory of competition for railways needs candid review.
I do not share these views, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that in the long run the railways would stand to lose, rather than gain, by amalgamation. On the other hand, the problem facing the grain trade in western Canada, where there is the proposed wholesale abandonment of branch lines by the railways which have been serving approximately 1,000 country elevators, is a serious one and very careful consideration will have to be given to this question before taking definite steps. It has been reported that not only will the grain companies suffer capital losses through a reduction of storage revenue and disruption of handling grain, but hundreds of men will be without jobs, including elevator and railway employees. The farmer, too, will be affected by having to haul his grain to the main line, which may be anywhere from 15 to 50 miles further away.
According to a survey of consumer expenditures in 1950 prepared by the bureau of labour statistics of the United States department of labour, the loss of 100 railway jobs would have the following effects upon a community: $52,300 paid by the workers in taxes would be lost as income to support the community and the nation; $159,600 spent for food and beverages would be lost to local grocers and restaurants; $9,300 less would be spent for tobacco. Well, this item may of course please the hon. lady the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh). Forty-nine thousand eight hundred dollars less would be spent for rent and other housing costs; $19,800 in business would be lost to producers of electric power and sellers of fuel and refrigeration; $19,800 less would be spent for things necessary to operate a household; $41,600 worth of business would be lost by furniture and household equipment dealers. Sixty thousand dollars less would be spent for clothes and clothing services; $87,000 less would be spent for transportation, including automobiles, servicing, gas and oil; $24,000 less would go as income to doctors,
Railway Act
nurses and others providing medical care; $11,000 less would be spent in beauty parlours and in the sale of cosmetics; $34,000 less would be spent on recreation, education and books; $6,000 less would be spent with miscellaneous business, $19,000 less would be given as gifts to churches and other institutions, and $24,000 in premiums for personal insurance would be lost to insurance salesmen.
Then, as the population of the world grows-and we are told that 40 years from now the population will be doubled-Canada's role in feeding the world will increase in importance and the need for an intensified production of grain will be evident. I can see a real need for the intensive cultivation of land, not for the abandonment of railway lines, a step which I consider can only produce unemployment and inconvenience, at best. As Canada's population grows, the troubles of the railways will disappear. That is my personal view.
In the meantime, we must develop and advance solutions to counteract prospective job losses due to automation, and the bill before us appears to offer to the railroads a reasonable proposal which would cover specific situations, being a broad protective measure for the benefit of those who through no fault of their own may be thrown out of a job or forced to move into an unfamiliar type of work which would require retraining.
The railways, certainly, have obligations to those of their employees affected by reason of the adoption of labour saving installations such as automatic yards, or office machinery, or indeed because of abandonment of branch lines or reduction of services. In all of these moves there should be, first, maximum notice of intention. Where displaced employees have no opportunity to relocate with the company, the railways should assume the responsibility of looking after them and their families until a satisfactory relocation is possible.
In other countries, such as England and the United States, there are arrangements for financial assistance for employees of railway companies who are required to relocate their homes as a result of changes in operations. In addition, there are schedules of severance pay for those who are unfortunate enough to lose their employment as a result of such changes. Without going into great detail, these countries give recognition to the human consequences resulting from technological change and other innovations.
The present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) speaking in Selkirk, Manitoba on March 8, 1963, made a statement on railway branch line policy which I should like to quote. The
references within it to the prime minister-

Railway Act
as he was, then-are, of course, references to the hon. member for Prince Albert, now Leader of the Opposition.
I am aware that the entire structure ol the Canadian transportation system is changing. This is particularly true of western Canada. Many of the changes being made are essential, but we must be sure that when changes are made, they are not made at the undue expense of particular areas and particular population groups.
The national government has an important responsibility where transportation is concerned because transportation is a foundation stone of Canada's social and economic life.
The Liberal party has given close attention to this issue. We will, when we form a government, see that any changes made are made with foresight and only after the fullest consideration of the interests of all those affected. We will ensure that essential branch line services are maintained.
A few years ago the Prime Minister appointed a special royal commission on transportation. After much study, the commission reported. One sentence from the report reads: "We are, therefore, in no position to offer a detailed plan for the rationalization of Canada's railway plant." Since that report came out, nothing has been done. Now, within the last few days, the Prime Minister has suggested that he has the answers. He says he is going to set up a branch line rationalization fund. It is true the royal commission could not solve the branch line problem. Now, after six years of delay the Prime Minister would have us believe he is going to take action.
The Liberal party does not claim to have all the answers to this very difficult problem. However, we will tackle it intelligently and without delay. As a government, the Liberals will establish a committee of inquiry to receive representations from farmers, labour, the municipalities and the provinces. This committee will be responsible for studying all the social and economic implications involved in the suspension of railway services. It will consider these implications not only from the standpoint of the railway companies but from the standpoint of the benefit to farmers, businessmen and the community in general. It will, as a government, be careful that no hasty actions are taken while the committee is deliberating. When the committee reports, its reports will be the foundation of a railway policy based on the best interests of all concerned groups and designed to maintain essential branch line services.
It seems to me that this statement is a fair appraisal of the situation. The Prime Minister is conscious of the consequences of any policy which would mean the displacement of workers in industry, and this includes layoffs in the railways. I trust that before this private members' hour expires, the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) will consider moving a motion referring this measure to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for further study. I believe in a railway policy which would give every man employed with the railway company an opportunity to continue to work and also the chance of a better life than has been possible in the past several years as a result of dislocation, lay-offs and other troubles which appear to be the order of the day.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise briefly to express my wholehearted support for the principle and purpose of this bill. I do so because I have been interested in this question for a number of years particularly as a result of living in a district where mining is an important occupation. I am also interested in this as one who has seen the loss suffered by miners because of mines being worked out. I can think of one community which had a thousand inhabitants some 20 years ago. Now, it has only seven. I can think of others which had three or four thousand workers or residents but which today are reduced to populations of three or four hundreds because of the change in circumstances brought about by a changing pattern in the mining industry. I noticed the inconvenience and loss suffered by these miners before I was a member of any legislature and before I became a member of the House of Commons. It may be of interest to the house that the mine, mill and smelter workers union was to my knowledge the first union in Canada to urge this principle because of their experience with mining industry development. The government and corporations should, Mr. Speaker, accept some responsibility for losses encountered through loss of employment as a result of closing down of mines. It may also interest the house to know that there are two members of the mine, mill and smelter workers union in this house. One is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Byrne) and the other is the hon. member for Kootenay West, and we are both proud of our membership.
I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that both the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), as well as other speakers, have expressed the need for this measure very well indeed. There is a need for financial responsibility on the part of government and corporations-which in the long run is society; it is the responsibility of us all-for some of the loss occasioned by loss of employment and loss of investment in homes which are greatly reduced in value when a community declines and operations cease. The government and corporations should also bear some responsibility for rehabilitating these citizens.
Attention has been drawn to the situation of the railway workers, because it was only recently that they suffered in the same way. This will increase with other industries; so more than ever there is a growing need for the acceptance of this principle. Because there is a growing need there is growing support for this principle. If you had talked of it ten years ago you would have found very few people interested, but now we have large

numbers of railroaders in my constituency who are affected, some of whom work on the Kettle Valley railroad, to which I have made reference in this house on two or three occasions, as well as in other parts of Canada. Because of my experience in the mining industry and my knowledge of the circumstances of the railroad workers, I believe this need is growing greater every day. Therefore I express support for the principle of this bill, and I am very pleased to urge that it be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for study, as a result of which I think we can resolve upon legislation which will do something to remedy this unfortunate situation.


Hon. J. Watson MacNaughl (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the said bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals, and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I think the house would give unanimous consent if you would now call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the unanimous consent of the house that I now call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. C-74, respecting the department of industry.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, when discussion of this bill was interrupted at five o'clock I was dealing with some of the problems that this group would like to bring to the minister's attention on the second reading of Bill No. C-74, an act respecting the establishment of a department of industry. We think that this bill can be a very good one and that the department of industry can be very acceptable to the Canadian people or the measure can be a very innocuous one depending on how the administration of the department operates.
I believe the Canadian people are aware of the fact that our economy is rapidly changing, that industry is going to play a much more important part in our economy year by
Establishment of Industry Department year and that a department to assist industry to develop and to establish the trade patterns needed to sell its products can be very ueeful. If the department operates like some of the other departments having to do with basic industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining and fisheries, then this will not really be earthshaking legislation. If, however, the minister puts all his known attributes behind making this new part of his responsibility his prime function, then I am quite sure that the department of industry can be very valuable. I am quite sure that this will be done. However, unless there is a willingness to give consideration to some of the problems that have been raised there are going to be many years of frustration before this department functions in the way that it should.
I was at the opening of an institution for the training of young people and the retraining of unemployed persons and I was very surprised to hear one of the officials make the startling statement that it is all right to come and represent the federal government and the contribution it is making, but what are we doing about getting the United States to make a contribution? I think we in Canada have made a contribution to the United States in that many of our people who have obtained their technical training and knowledge here have gone to that country because of our inability to maintain the industries we already had, or to establish new ones. One excellent example was our inability to cope with the problem of the technical staffs we had trained for the aircraft industry at the time of the development of the CF-105. At that time we had in Canada some of the best technical advisers and most competent technical people in the aircraft industry anywhere in the world. Yet almost overnight we lost a great percentage of these people because of our inability to take advantage of the knowledge they had.
I believe that this new department is very worth while. It is one that can serve the needs of the people. The charge was made by the Conservatives this afternoon that the department will not function properly because the present government is going into the field of economic planning, and that this will be detrimental. In my opinion the department will succeed if the government does go into the field of economic planning, assesses the situation from the point of view of the benefit to the Canadian people and then makes its economic planning work. We are setting up a council to provide knowledge of what is needed. Now we are setting up a department to make effective use of this knowledge. I believe that the minister should give consideration to having money provided for the department by way of a statutory item
1658	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department so that there will be money available for the establishment of new industries and particularly pilot industries. If that is done I believe the department can be very successful. Before the bill receives third reading I hope the minister will give consideration to some of these points.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support and urge second reading of this bill I must first comment that I was struck by the theme, the keynote almost, of of the remarks of the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) who spoke for the opposition. His keynote might be exemplified by the word "frightened". He said he was frightened by a certain clause. He said we had to be very careful about some other part of the bill. This attitude exemplifies the all too well known Conservative approach to the whole problem of industrial development in Canada, and especially the problem of the development of certain areas that have been lagging behind in economic growth and progress.
With this attitude of fear, of overcarefulness if I may call it that, it is no wonder that year after year during the six years of the Tory regime we had a hard core of hundreds of thousands of unemployed. It is no wonder that unemployment averaged over 6 per cent a year. Either they ignored this problem completely and suggested that it did not exist or, if they recognized it, instead of using the approach which we see in the bill before us today, especially the provisions for an area development agency, they used a fragmentary, bits and pieces approach -an order in council here, a special tariff exemption there or the removal of some other exemption in some other place. Instead of settling down and tackling the whole problem as a matter of national policy they were content, as I say, either to ignore its existence on just to nibble around the edges.
I say that it is about time we recognized, as is done in the present bill, that there are areas in all parts of our country that have lagged behind for years in respect of economic development. Because of changing technology and shifts in the national economy and through industries leaving certain areas, we find that there are parts of our country where there is a hard core of thousands of people unemployed year after year. Unfortunately the former government, in spite of ample opportunity and in spite of the fact that this problem was brought very forcibly to their attention by people now on the government side and by representatives from these areas, did little or nothing about it.
The problem of the depressed areas has many serious effects on the municipalities concerned. The municipalities are faced with heavy burdens for relief and social assistance.


They are faced with the burden of carrying the indebtedness brought about by having to pay for roads, sidewalks and schools that they built for the benefit of the workers in factories which then decided to move to other areas of our country.
Probably most important of all was and is the human factor, the effect upon people whose jobs, after years of working, have suddenly disappeared, leaving them in communities where there is little or no hope of finding other employment, leaving them with the problem of continuing to pay for homes into which they put their entire savings, leaving them without training to make use of even any new jobs where such jobs exist. Surely, it must be obvious by now, as I know it is when we see this bill presented to this house, that if we can pay the money we do for relief, for unemployment insurance, it is equally sensible to carry out incentive measures through the medium of a body such as the area development agency of this new department of industry, to stimulate industry so as to provide this needed employment in those areas that have been lagging behind the rest of our country.
After all, Mr. Speaker, eight countries of western Europe, and the United States as well, have by now recognized the usefulness of special programs for area development. It is important to recognize, as has been recognized by the presentation of this bill, the need for a broad national policy. The hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) referred to efforts being made in Ontario. Surely, he must recognize that there is a lot more to Canada than Ontario, even though my own community is in one particular corner of it. All provinces are not equally able to act in this field or, for that matter, equally willing to act. The federal government's taxing powers, its fiscal and monetary powers, will be powerful weapons to fight this chronic unemployment that we have had too long, wherever it may be found in our Canadian nation.
In urging second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we have to consider this bill as part of a great program to rebuild confederation. There has been a lot of talk inside and outside of this house about the need, as we approach the centenary of the founding of this nation, to do something about the repairing of the tears that have come into its fabric. I think that many others have pointed out that some of these tears, these strains, have come through economic causes. If we are to rebuild confederation, as we must, it is necessary not only to make sure that we have fair treatment for the peoples of both basic cultures of this country,

but also to make sure that we have fair treatment in the economic sense of people from every corner of this nation, whether they be from my own community of Windsor, Elliot Lake, Gaspe or any other part of our country. In this way, we will carry out the essential task before us of rebuilding confederation and thereby being able to celebrate the centenary of the nation in 1967 in the most appropriate way. Mr. Speaker, I urge the prompt second reading and implementation of this bill.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I question the value of that bill, and I am wondering why the government is considering such a measure when we already have the Department of Trade and Commerce. I am most afraid-and we on this side of the house really are afraid -because when we look at section 14 under "General", paragraph (b), this is what we find:
(b) may, with the approval of the governor in council, enter into agreements with the government of any province or any agency thereof for the carrying out of programs for which he is responsible; and-
We are really afraid that the bill is but another way to interfere with provincial jurisdiction in the field of industry. Before it is passed, I think it would be better if the minister were to submit it to the interprovincial conference to be held next fall in Halifax, to make sure that the bill is in keeping with the requirements of the provinces and is not another means of encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the provinces.
The hon. member who before me spoke about confederation, said that there was a certain uneasiness. If that is the case it is due to the fact that bills such as the one we are considering now have been passed and that the government which sits on your right, Mr. Speaker, did not care about the rights of the provinces in establishing all kinds of programs, of joint plans which infringed upon the authority of the provinces. That is the greatest threat to confederation.
We can detect once more in this bill, the hand of the master planner, the hon. member for Outremeont-St. Jean (Mr. Lam on -tagne). And I say to the house, that the speech from the throne and the budget speech reflected the greatest effort of centralization since confederation and that is a threat of interference in the field of provincial jurisdiction.
I wonder why the minister, who comes from the province of Quebec and who is acquainted with its complaints and those of
Establishment of Industry Department other provinces, approves the arrogant attitude of the federal government in certain fields which is in fact an interference in provincial fields.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the establishment of agencies, section 12 provides:
(1) There shall be established an area development agency under the direction of a commissioner for area development, both of whom shall be appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure.
I wonder why it is necessary to establish such an agency when there is already a department of industry in each province. Why attempt to thrust opinions on the provinces through agencies? Let us use the department of industry of each province in order to respect more fully the rights of the provinces.
With regard to the bill now under discussion, I also hope that the personnel employed in that department will be bilingual, that a great part of the employees will be bilingual so that the province of Quebec especially, and other eastern provinces, may benefit from it since there is a lack of secondary industries there at present.
I remember hearing the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) say that a Canadian textile council should be set up. I would like such a council to be set up and to operate in conjunction with the provinces, while respecting their jurisdiction and maintaining good relations, in order to assist industry, not only in the province of Quebec and eastern Ontario, but also in the maritimes.
I am most surprised that the minister has not yet participated in the debate. If he wants to help industry, why does he not convince his colleagues and the cabinet members of the necessity of removing the 11 per cent tax on building materials, to encourage the companies which are interested in establishing plants especially in the underdeveloped areas of the country.
In my opinion, the most practical means to achieve economic expansion and to assist underdeveloped areas would be to remove this 11 per cent tax which would paralyse the economic development of the country. I challenge any member opposite to prove that this tax will not be an impediment to the economic expansion of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing but a smokescreen. Unfortunately it will be an interference in the jurisdiction of the provinces.
It is a well-known fact that the provinces have needs, especially the province of Quebec which has an exceedingly high rate of unem-
1660	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department ployment. In fact, Canada has 12,000 more unemployed this month than during the corresponding month last year.
Quebec wishes to set up a steel industry and I would like the minister to assure us that if the provincial authorities submit an official request, the federal government will provide the necessary funds by means of long term loans, if necessary, to enable our province to fulfil its dream and to set up a steel industry which would greatly contribute to the elimination of unemployment and would help the people of Quebec recover their freedom in the economic field.
Mr. Speaker, when the bill was in its resolution stage, I asked whether it would be possible to study the adoption of the metric system. We, on this side of the house would like the minister to tell us of his views on the matter. We remember that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has already spoken on that point in the house. There is of course no question, for Canada, of discarding the English system-that is not at all what we have in mind. But we wonder if that system could not perhaps be incorporated in the metric system? In the past, some of our products-particularly machine and precision tools-could not be sold in Europe, and we know that the metric system is used in the world by nine countries out of ten.
Does the Canadian government intend to follow the lead of the United States, of Great Britain, and of nearly all the countries who use the English system? Is it prepared to set, as they have done, a special committee to study the possible adoption of the metric system by all the nations of the earth? Such widespread adoption would enable many of our products to sell abroad.
Mr. Speaker, we will pass the bill before us only on the understanding that the minister give us the assurance that the autonomy of the province is not to be violated, that he will consult the provinces and submit the bill to them.
We are prepared to co-operate with the government. It is said that we hinder the passage of bills, but almost all measures proposed, such as the bill respecting the municipal development and loan board or the present bill under consideration, constitute a perpetual encroachment on spheres reserved for the provinces.
As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that due to the action of the present government, we will no longer have confederation in 1967; rather we will witness its dismemberment.
And that is why I personally support the position that Mr. Lesage and the other leaders of the province of Quebec have taken,


as the federal government is ceaselessly interfering in fields which come under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
(Text):


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member who has just preceded me, I would like to talk about Bill C-74 which deals with the department of industry. This bill proposes establishing a department that is going to be dealing with industry in our country.
I think first of all we must always ask ourselves, in looking at a proposal such as this where we are thinking of the government taking some action with respect to a private segment of the economy, if there is a need for the government to become involved in this type of activity. I think we on this side of the house feel-I know I certainly do- that those things that can be done by industry should be done by industry, without government interference. The government should only become involved if there is a need, if there are problems that industry itself cannot solve.
In the case of our industry now, there is ample evidence that some action by the government is required. Let us look at a few factors in connection with our industry.
First of all, we know that many people in this country depend on industry for their jobs. We also know that we have large-scale unemployment, and that therefore industry has not been able to provide the necessary jobs. This is true despite the fact that last year we had a large scale increase in industrial activity.
We also know that we will have many new people coming into the work force over the next few years, and we are going to have problems as automation releases people from their jobs. So that the situation is not going to get better; it will get worse.
We know as well that our industry must export, and increase its exports, if it is going to expand sufficiently to provide the necessary growth that will ensure the necessary jobs. If we are to export and compete in world markets we know we can only do so on two bases: We either have a unique product to sell, or we have low prices.
What about our industry at present? A large segment of it does not do its own designing. A large segment depends, through licensing arrangements, on designs done outside our country. In addition much of our industry is producing at the relatively low volume levels of our own domestic market, and hence it has the high costs that go with such a volume. A large segment of our industry has therefore neither the unique design

nor the low costs that will enable it to compete successfully in world markets.
We also know that many millions of dollars worth of parts, bits and pieces, are imported by industry for assembly into finished products in this country. A percentage of these could, and should be made in Canada if we are to cut down on our unemployment and provide the requisite number of jobs.
These are problems that exist now, and they are problems that will become even more severe as trends toward freer trade develop. Our industry is having problems providing enough jobs under current conditions. As tariffs come down, and as trade becomes freer, these problems will increase. Our industry has not yet solved the problems that will enable it to compete under these new conditions.


Mr. Clancy:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


David George Hahn: I prefer to finish my speech first. Industry has not solved these problems by itself, and this I believe is sufficient justification for government help in this field. In fact I feel that if the government does not help in this field it will be negligent in its responsibility to the people of the country.
I believe industry recognizes this, that it welcomes government help, and that it welcomes the establishment of a department of industry. Despite the remarks of the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), I am sure the Canadian Manufacturers' Association would like to see this department established.
It is not going to be the job of this department-indeed nothing in the bill implies it- to interfere with industry and strangle it with red tape. It is not the purpose of the proposed department, as the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) suggested, to subsidize uneconomic segments of our industry. Neither do I believe it is, nor should it be, the purpose of this department to act as a government consultant or lending bureau for individual companies that have fallen behind the times and have got themselves into trouble.
To me the purpose of the new department is to do two main things, as set out in the bill. First of all, it is the job of the department to learn the facts, to find out what the situation is, and to identify and set up the problems. Having done that, its job is to work out, with industry, solutions to these problems. This task can only be done and the solutions can only be posed once the problems have been identified in specific terms.
The first stage, therefore, must be a detailed industry by industry examination to determine these problems. The hon. member for Perth suggested there would be a blizzard of paper and forms. He suggested that statistics
27, 1963	1661
Establishment of Industry Department would be compiled and counter compiled, and filed and counterfiled. I believe many of these statistics presently exist, and I think the minister designate, and the persons who will work with him in the new department, will have reasonable powers of logic and normal portions of common sense. I would expect that the industries would be selected on some rational basis. I would imagine there would be some priority in selecting these industries, and that priority presumably would be based on those industries that might yield the greatest returns first.
I would assume, for instance, that such things as total employment in an industry would be one of the criteria, for those industries that have now large scale employment are the ones that offer the most immediate potential gains in future employment. I think another criteria in selecting industries would probably be the volume of imports, because here is the plum that we want to pick; these are the items that, if we can make them here, offer relatively immediate gains in employment. Also, obviously the export potential of an industry would help to determine the order in which it is selected. This industry by industry study, as the minister has stated, has already started with the automobile industry.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has been asking where the money is; why do we not pour in millions of dollars. I do not believe that this department should become a means through which we wind up with socialized industry in this country. I think that wherever possible the solutions to the problems that are posed should be achieved through normal financing channels. This will not always be possible, and if funds are needed for special projects I believe these funds should be appropriated as required. To my mind it is better to ask for the funds and appropriate them as you need them, rather than set up a large sum of money which you then scurry around trying to find ways and means of spending. While on the subject of financing, I would hope that this department would have a close liaison with the industrial development bank so that this agency which is already in existence might be of more help, particularly to some of the smaller industries in the country.
The hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) opposed the idea of the department at the beginning of his speech, but toward the end I believe he recognized, as I am sure other hon. members do, the need for this work, because he suggested, as others have, that it should be carried out through the Department of Trade and Commerce and that this department should be expanded to become
1662	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department a department of trade and industry. Let us look at the Department of Trade and Commerce. It is now acting to some degree as a sales agency in foreign markets for our farm produce, for the Department of Agriculture, for our forestry products, and our mineral products. It is working in the field of export sales of our oil and gas; it is arranging tariff negotiations of great importance to the large scale development of this country. I think this department as it is now constituted has quite enough to do. I believe that even though the minister is extremely capable, he has enough to do. I think the problems of industry are too important to be tacked on as a tail to this already overburdened department. I believe that the scope of the problems and the need for solution are sufficient to justify and warrant a department on its own to handle them. I therefore urge that second reading be given to this bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, at the resolution stage of this bill on June 13, a day which will ever be memorable in the history of this parliament-


Mr. Macdonald:: What about April 8?


Gordon Minto Churchill: -I made a few remarks concerning the bill and I expressed the hope that the government would, in the light of those remarks and others made by various hon. members, redraft the bill and put it forward in better shape. But this government has been able to make more mistakes in shorter time, with less difficulty, than any government of which I have ever heard. The only advice they are prepared to accept is that from outside the House of Commons from inexperienced people; hence their errors.
I suggested at the resolution stage that the bill, if drawn on the basis of that resolution, would be presenting to the House of Commons too broad an approach; that there would be no single, specific item that we could select as special part of the bill; that we would have two things here, with no single principle, a department of industry and an area development agency, which in my opinion should have been set up in a separate bill. The government did not accept that advice. We now have before us Bill No. C-74, and what is its principle? There are two things here, the department of industry for one and an area development agency for another. We are faced with the problem of discussing two items which are separate and distinct from each other; and we are faced, if there is a vote on the bill, with accepting both, although hon. members might want to accept one and reject the other.
That is not the only fault of the bill as put before us. When we get to the committee stage


and are able to discuss it clause by clause we will point out some of the mistakes in drafting that have occurred in this bill showing that it has been hastily drawn, not well thought out, and that it is one which does not bear the mark of the experienced drafters with whom I was familiar during the time we were in office, and on the treasury benches. The suspicion, naturally, is created that this bill was drafted by people inexperienced in parliamentary procedure; people brought in, perhaps, from the outside and making mistakes in drafting a bill just as they made mistakes in drawing up the budget.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The smear expert.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I mentioned at the resolution stage that there was general agreement in Canada that emphasis should be placed on the development of industry. No one finds any fault with that at all. I quoted from the dominion bureau of statistics Canada Year Book for 1962 a paragraph indicating the development of Canada as an industrial nation. Everyone is seized with the importance of industry. I had intended at that time-and I take the opportunity of doing so now-to point out that, although we hope to gain greater employment through the development of industry, we must not be carried away by any misconceptions with regard to employment based on industry. It is absolutely essential to have industries and to have more of them, but it does not necessarily follow that employment on a large scale results from the multiplication of secondary manufacturing. I wish that were the case; but improved methods of manufacturing and automation seem to have slowed the rate of employment in manufacturing. When you look at page 616 of the Canada Year Book for 1962 you find it gives a summary of manufactures from 1917 to 1960. You find that-I will take two years for comparison -in 1953 there were 38,107 manufacturing establishments in Canada. By 1959, the other year for comparison, the number of manufacturing establishments had declined to 36,193. If we look at the employment factor in 1953, we discover there were 1,327,451 people employed in those manufacturing establishments. In 1959, the number was 1,303,956. It is interesting to note that the productivity factor has been good. The gross value of products increased from almost $18 billions in 1953 to $23 billions in 1959. Thus, improved methods of manufacturing have brought about increased productivity but the employment factor has not shown the great increase which perhaps we all hoped it would.
Similar material is given in the Canada Year Book with regard to the provinces and

with regard to the leading manufacturing industries. It shows a steady growth in the industrialization of Canada but this growth does not reflect the increase in employment for which we might have hoped. Percentage distribution of employed, by industrial groups, shown on page 711, indicates the point I have been stressing. In 1961, of a total number employed of some six million people, 11 per cent were in agriculture, 3 per cent were in other primary industries, 25 per cent in manufacturing, 6.7 per cent in construction, 8.4 per cent in transportation and other utilities, 16.3 per cent in trade, 4 per cent in finance, insurance and real estate, and 25.5 per cent in various services. If we compare with these figures the situation in 1961 we will see that there has been a sharp decline in the total employed in agriculture. In other primary industries, the decline is about 1 per cent. In manufacturing, the percentage has stayed close to 25 per cent as it has done for many years. In the construction industry it has stayed between 6.5 and 7 per cent. Transportation has run around 8 or 8.5 per cent; employment in trade has increased by about 1.5 per cent. But the big increase has occurred in the service industries, employment in which has risen in a period of ten years from 18 per cent of the total employed to 25.5 per cent.
That is the way employment is running in our country at the present time. My criticism of the bill, and of the whole idea, is that the Department of Trade and Commerce, as it is at the present time, is equipped to do all that the proposed department of industry is aiming to do. The hon. member who preceded me said that the department was overlarge and overburdened. May I point out that in the year 1960 there was a reorganization of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Prior to 1959 the department had a deputy minister and two assistant deputy ministers. In 1960, in addition to the deputy minister, two extra assistant deputy ministers were provided and duties were spread among them as follows: One was in charge of trade policy; another was in charge of external trade promotion, and a third was in charge of commodities including the commodities branch, and the agriculture and fisheries branch. Then there was an assistant deputy minister in charge of what was called, and what is still called, domestic commerce. To him four branches were assigned, namely the standards branch, the industrial promotion branch, the small business branch, and the industrial design branch. The whole purpose of appointing an assistant deputy minister to take charge of domestic commerce was that he might meet the important-
27, 1963	1663
Establishment of Industry Department
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I have the floor or whether the hon. member opposite has the floor at this time.


George Clyde Nowlan: What about that fellow sitting there with his back to us. Can't he sit down?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the cooperation of all hon. members. If hon. gentlemen need to carry on conversations, could they not do it sotto voce, or behind the curtain?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) and his parliamentary secretary have a great many things to learn about their department. I think they should retire and get on with the job instead of interrupting.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Would the hon. member permit a question. I think that if he has not yet learned that courtesy in this chamber-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, get out, then.


George Clyde Nowlan: Courtesy. Resign.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the Speaker has drawn the attention to the minister of the fact that courtesy is expected in this chamber. When one hon. member has the floor, others who wish to talk generally get out of the chamber. That is what I say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He has a lot to learn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which is the pot and which is the kettle?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was drawing attention to the reorganization which took place in the Department of Trade and Commerce for the express purpose of recognizing the importance of industry and of secondary manufacturing in this country. The people engaged in secondary manufacturing came to Ottawa and prior to the appointment of an assistant deputy minister in charge of domestic commerce, as it is called here, they made their visits to the Department of Finance. In those days officials of the Department of Finance familiar with matters pertaining to industry were selected to receive them. In those days, too, officials of the Department of National Revenue were available for consultation and advice but the situation appears to have changed recently. I found that representatives of secondary manufacturing paid their visits to the Department of Trade and Commerce, not solely for the purpose of getting information and assistance or of putting forward ideas with regard to Canada's export trade but also to look for help and guidance in the domestic field and in the industrial development of Canada. It seemed we should have someone to meet the representatives of the manufacturing industries when they came to

Establishment of Industry Department Ottawa, hence the appointment of an assistant deputy minister in the Department of Trade and Commerce. If the Department of Trade and Commerce were renamed the department of industry and commerce-because the words "trade" and "commerce" are practically synonymous, the problem which faces us now will be met. Moreover, the emphasis will be placed on industry as, indeed, I agree it should be. The department as now set up is fully qualified to give industry the assistance it needs. That has been proved over the years. It is one of the oldest departments of government, one of the best organized, contains a large number of people who have had vast experience in dealing with industrial problems, and it has a first class group of trade commissioners posted around the world who keep constantly in touch with people engaged in industry here wishing to enter the export market.
To my mind setting up a department of industry at this stage would strike at the Department of Trade and Commerce and weaken it. I regret that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) has not taken a firm stand on this and held his department together and intact. I do not understand why he permits a slicing away of a very important segment of his department and having it placed under this new department of industry, because there is an integration within that department. Secondary industry is interested in the export field just as are the primary industries, and with our small population of about 19 million we have not the base to enlarge our industrial production as we would wish. Therefore, increasingly the manufacturing industries are looking to the export market in order to get a wider field for their products. Within the Department of Trade and Commerce, with an assistant deputy minister whose sole aim in life is the production of the interests of industry and whose associates are engaged in promoting export trade abroad, are a group of officials able to undertake this task. To set up a separate department of industry strikes, as I say, at one of the very strong departments of government, and in my opinion weakens it, and weakens it unnecessarily.
I know, Mr. Speaker, from the experience which I had with that department, of the close association there is between those who are engaged in secondary manufacturing and those who are interested in export trade. The Department of Trade and Commerce over the last several years has been busily engaged in doing some of the things which the government now proposes shall be done by the department of industry. In one of the clauses of the bill we read that:

The minister shall
(a) cause the department to acquire a detailed knowledge of manufacturing industries in Canada;-
-as if that is something which had not been done in the past, and is opening up a new frontier.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That scares you.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do I hear again from the Minister of Veterans Affairs? His ignorance is appalling.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: From you I expect that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The government is now starting to acquire through a new department a detailed knowledge of manufacturing industries in Canada. That knowledge has already been in the possession of departments of government, particularly the Department of Trade and Commerce. In that department over the last several years a survey has been conducted with regard to imports coming to this country in an endeavour to classify those articles imported from abroad which could and should be manufactured within this country. That information has now been assembled and transmitted to secondary manufacturers in this country, so the very thing the new department is expected to carry out has already been done. The same clause says that the minister shall-
-promote the establishment, growth, efficiency and improvement of manufacturing industries in Canada-
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Department of Trade and Commerce through that special branch has already been working at. Then-
-to assist the adaptation of manufacturing industries to changing conditions in domestic and export markets-
The Department of Trade and Commerce under the assistant deputy minister of domestic commerce has already been doing that. Then-
-to identify and assist those manufacturing industries that require special measures to develop an unrealized potential or to cope with exceptional problems of adjustments-
That must have been written by an outside adviser. The Department of Trade and Commerce has already been doing that. Then lastly, the same clause says that the minister shall-
_promote the development and use of modern
industrial technology in Canada and improve the effectiveness of the participation by the government of Canada in industrial research.
The Department of Trade and Commerce has already been interested in that particular problem. So that here we have the truncating of one of the largest and most important departments of government; the formation of a new department which will have thrust into

its midst, apparently, the Department of Defence Production, and then will have added to that a development agency, diverting it from the task which we would expect it to undertake.
So, Mr. Speaker, on those grounds I suggest that there is still time for the government, fumbling and bumbling and uncertain as it is, to make the corrections to this bill, wipe out the department of industry section of it, rename the Department of Trade and Commerce the department of industry and commerce, strengthen it if you like, and then set up this agency development program to assist those areas in need of special assistance.
I said at the resolution stage, Mr. Speaker, that my experience was that if bills were carefully prepared and carefully drafted there was little difficulty in getting them through the House of Commons, and I have the records for several years which I have studied to indicate that. The House of Commons loses time on other matters, but not on legislation, except in instances where the legislation is badly drafted; and in this instance the legislation has been badly drafted. It was a hurried-up job and we have presented to us now a bill which in many respects is thoroughly unsound.
I suggest that the government take a little time now-they may have 120 days and not just 60 for further plans-to pause and reflect and study the problem again. Do not destroy part of the effectiveness of the Department of Trade and Commerce, which I think is the most serious thing that is going to happen under these circumstances. Because if the government blindly goes ahead and sets up a new department of industry, is it then going to transfer from the Department of Trade and Commerce the people who are working there in the fields about which I have already spoken? Or is the government going to bring in outsiders? There are some temporary appointments to be made apparently-persons having special knowledge to advise the minister. These temporary people called in from outside is a matter we will discuss in committee.
In the Department of Trade and Commerce you have men who have grown up with the problem; people who have been selected after graduation from university, given a course of training and brought into the department. There are many men there who have had years and years of experience and know more about industry in Canada than, I would say, the members in this chamber and most other people in the country. They have a broad view of the whole problem and they know the implications and the changes which are desirable and which should be made. These are the men who also have knowledge of the 28902-5-106
27, 1963	1665
Establishment of Industry Department trading patterns of the world. They are the people who have taken part in the committee discussions internationally, in the trade bargains and arrangements that have been made. These are the men who have been at the conferences at Geneva under GATT. They are the ones who have the knowledge of international trade, the knowledge of the effects of the changes in international trade on the economy of Canada. I think that men of that training and calibre should stay within the department in which they have received their training and to which they have made such a magnificent contribution.
So I suggest that even at this stage the government should reconsider the matter and revise their plan. The revision that I suggest will not destroy the idea at all. I reiterate that everybody in Canada is in favour of emphasizing industrial development and we have no objection to that at all. I do not think there will be serious objection with regard to the other problem of helping certain designated areas where the employment situation may be improved by industrial assistance. Within the presently organized government departments the agencies are there for industrial development. In the Department of Trade and Commerce there are experienced men. A change of name only might be necessary, or alternatively raise the administration of the industry side to the status of a deputy minister and have a deputy minister in charge of industry and a deputy minister in charge of the other facets of the department now known as trade and commerce. That would elevate and give emphasis to industrial development rather than the government creating another portfolio and plucking another minister out of the hat to develop a new department, thus multiplying the bureaucratic controls to which objection has already been taken in the house.
Those are some of my objections, Mr. Speaker, to the way in which this proposal has been put before the House of Commons. I do not object to the proposal but I do object to the way in which it has been presented.
(Translation):
Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere du Loup-
Temiscouata): Mr. Speaker, it is for me a pleasure to support Bill C-74 and I believe that all the less favoured areas are going to welcome it with as great a pleasure as I.
In the less developed areas we get the impression sometimes that we are like St. John the Baptist, a voice crying in the wilderness. We clearly felt and particularly under the former administration that there was no echo to our voice.
1666	HOUSE OF
Establishvient of Industry Department
We know of course, as the late President Roosevelt said, that governments act under the pressures put on them and that the news media, the newspapers, which largely represent public opinion are too well centralized, and a car accident will get a bigger headline than 100 people out of work.
We realize, however, that this government forges ahead and I will say that the greatest criticism that could be directed against the federal government is that it is far removed from the less developed and hard to reach areas. But, in view of all the legislative measures presented to the house, it is easy to see that an effort is being made to change the situation and to deal with the problems of the less developed areas by helping them through various programs dealing with decentralization and area development, through tax concessions to industry, winter works, a department of agriculture for eastern Canada and special assistance to the Atlantic region. Finally, we greet today the new department of industry.
One knows that in less developed areas, and especially in those where my constituency is located, industry is faced with serious and particular problems. Industry is a family concern-everyone knows that-and in view of the legacies, succession duties and income tax, of course, it is often hard to get enough money for the current operations as well as for long term investments, to modernize and keep up with fast-changing technology.
On the other hand, the problems that face our regional industry reflect on the industry of municipalities and also result in numerous difficulties for the farming industry because, on the one hand, there is not enough vitality, because we are unable to follow the technical developments and also because of the lack of long term financing facilities for necessary improvements. We do not make enough progress to use manpower available on the market and we see our young people leaving the country for the large centres, thus depriving agriculture of its natural market for its products in depressed areas.
To illustrate those facts, I cannot do any better than read to you an extract of an article by Hr. Lorenzo Pare, former president of the press gallery here, in L'Action of March 29; I quote:
The village closing round the steeple, against a background of mountains along the seashore. A community united through work and virtue. That is how tourists discover our old and picturesque establishments which lend a charm to the lower St. Lawrence. This is the idyllic picture which causes our politicians to be enraptured by the way of life in all those counties. That is the poetry


that touches all our hearts, when we are still so near to our origins bound up in the soil, while present hardships make us turn with nostalgia to the past.
The realities of this garden of Eden are, in fact, poverty, destitution, economic stagnation, depopulation and emigration.
Supplier of men who have vitalized our whole province, centre of our large families, this huge area, more than half as large as Belgium, is unable to feed its children at present.
Well, in the past, as a general rule, for the appropriation of funds which might bring about economic development, the preliminary and main condition was the yield of the investment. However, in view of that basic principle, some depressed areas could not always justify the economic yield of investments, while the wealthier municipalities could do so, with the result that we wound up in a vicious circle where those who had plenty were given more, while those who had nothing were given nothing.
I think that throughout its legislation, and more particularly by means of Bill C-74 concerning the establishment of a department of industry, the government is trying to get out of that vicious circle, so that depressed areas would be allowed to develop normally, and all talents which are found there and often feel frustrated would be allowed to play their part in society, and Anally the potential natural resources would be developed so as to contribute to the growth of the nation. I think that objective can be met through cooperation with the provinces, municipalities and regional economic development boards.
I think that if the province of Quebec had to depend solely on the hon. members opposite as her champions, there might be some reason for concern, because they helplessly witnessed, in their own government-and they have my sympathy for that-the centralizing of government in the hands of one man, which created a congestion and brought about an almost unequalled exhibition of the art of sitting on a fence.
I think we can quote, since they apply to municipalities, the provinces and the central government, the words spoken by Mr. Kennedy in his inaugural address: "We shall not fear to co-operate; we ought not to cooperate out of fear".
I think we should indicate that we are ready to co-operate, that out Arst care is to help the unemployed and the underdeveloped areas, because nobody would deny the need for a co-ordinating action in the whole country on the part of the central government, if we really want to have a balanced development from coast to coast, which will give an

equal chance to all the provinces to attain a balanced economy from their large centres to their remotest outposts.
Under the powers mentioned by the bill before us, there is, on the one hand, a provision for research on the problems particular to underdeveloped areas to help them and to co-ordinate efforts within each department to bring about an efficient action which will redress our economy and put an end to the exodus of healthy young people from small centres to large cities.
I think that the legislation before us indicates also, on the part of the government, a desire to decentralize its administration, to bring it nearer to the people, so as to understand its problems better and explain them to the higher levels.
I think that at the less favoured levels, there is a desire to be heard by those at the top, which will have much more serious consequences than we could foresee.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to single out my own district, where we have an unemployment situation of about 30 per cent of the available labour force. At this time, five provincial counties have formed a group, as well as the municipalities. The authorities have imposed a contribution of five cents a head on each citizen of a county and ten cents a head for the citizens of municipalities, to create a local economic guidance council, with a view to studying the possibilities of the communities concerned, and carrying out some plans which would revive their economy. But we knew very well that they could never accomplish such a major task alone without the sympathy and understanding of the upper levels of government.
We also know that the Quebec government to really enable family industry to crack the sound barrier, and to change from family industry to public industry, has created the "Societe generale de financement" which will give assistance. But the federal government must also contribute and it is through unity and co-operation in the municipal councils, the county councils, the provinces and the federal government, that we will be able to address our intelligence and efforts to find a way to check the serious ill, that is, unemployment.
Before concluding my remarks, may I say that I am most happy about this bill which is aimed at solving a problem which concerns to the utmost those who have chronic 28902-5-106i
27,	1963	1667
Establishment of Industry Department and constant unemployment in their ridings, who understand that unemployment statistics hide extreme hardship. There is also the danger that such hardship may entail enormous social ills, when there are so many opportunities, so much good will, so much skills waiting to be used, so many frustrated ideals and talents which should be given not only the hope but the possibility of solving those problems so that instead of being a burden for, if not a blot on society, they may become important assets contributing to the progress and to the development of the country.
We must have a master research and study plan, but also and concurrently we must have immediate programs to implement. I believe that history will reveal that the challenge offered by the development of the less favoured areas was courageously accepted by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and his valiant team.
Let me quote the "vicomte de Meaux":
When God wants to punish nations, he sends them warriors whose only greatness is measured by the size of their swords, financiers whose only greatness is measured by the depth of their pockets and politicians whose only greatness is measured by the length of their speeches.
I believe that history will show that in 1963, Canada had a Prime Minister who was great by his achievements, by his understanding of problems, by his desire to give back to Canadians pride, hope and confidence in a brilliant future.
And the citizens of less favoured areas will say like Churchill: "Give us the tools and we will finish the job".
(Text):


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, there are many provisions of this bill with which I do not agree. As a matter of fact I am not sure, as I stated earlier in the debate on the resolution, whether or not it would be desirable to set up this new department at all. However, without any reflection whatever on the remarks that have been made by the preceding speaker who, I know, has not made a contribution in this debate on the bill or on the resolution, I think that the greatest service we can render is to pass this motion for second reading and get into the committee stage so that we can-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -ask some direct questions of the minister and get some direct answers. If at that stage the answers are not satisfactory, then we can use our persistence to
1668	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department prevail upon the ministry to make the necessary changes in line with what we consider would be improvements to the bill.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, this bill that we have before us tonight is aimed at filling a great need in Canada.
I take exception to the way the bill is drafted because it appears to provide more government by pigeon hole. It appears to be trying to set up an economic dictatorship. We have to back away from the subject and take a look at the over-all proposition. We must ask ourselves, are we prepared for national socialism, or are we not. If we are not, then I think we should redraft this bill and take a new look at ideas of economic planning. The sweeping powers which the minister would be given if the bill became law would make him the virtual dictator of all businesses in Canada.
If the purpose of the bill were devoted to government planning with a view to advising businesses how best to run their affairs, I would be all in favour of it; but if it is to set up a master crown corporation wherein all businesses large and small, will be dictated to by government of any kind at any level, then I would throw the bill out. I am not prepared for anything like national socialism of any kind.
I believe there is a great need for more investigation and exploration into the natural resources of our country; but as the house well knows, these are largely in the control of the provincial governments and so we would need, as outlined in clause 14(b), the approval of the governor in council to enter into agreements with the various provincial governments. This is not an easy task. I have had some experience in this regard with the Social Credit government of Alberta, and it is difficult even to make contact with them, to have them meet in any friendly way to discuss the over-all problems of developing the natural resources in that fair province.
To suggest that the minister have jurisdiction only over those things which come under federal jurisdiction would restrict us to the development of industry in the Northwest Territories, and although the Northwest Territories are a very important part of Canada, it seems to me it is the over-all development of our natural resources which is required. Probably the best way of accomplishing that is by setting up a board in complete co-operation with the provinces, for our industrial development, and making use of our natural resources.
Of course the bottleneck will be the credit necessary to develop these resources. It has


been suggested by one minister that we do not need to set up a large fund for the development of these resources. Therefore we are going to have large plans without anything behind them. Again I say we should drop this idea of government by pigeon hole. What we need is a broad plan for national development where we have the co-operation of all industry.
During the previous administration we placed an official of the Department of Trade and Commerce in the industrial development bank of Canada to try and make the necessary funds available for industrial development. This had a signal success. In round figures it was possible to make available to industries and small businesses just about four times as much money per year as they ever had before. Therefore I think the credit supply is of prime importance. But again, I am against the idea of the government setting up its own credit supply. I would far rather it made the money available to the industrial bank, as in the past, and by working through a board under the direction of the minister this would provide something of an advisory and not a dictatorial nature.
The biggest barrier to full employment is trade, and in this connection I wish to refer to the Gordon report. I do not often refer to it, but at page 60 it says:
In any case, the benefits to be expected from freer trade are impossible to quantify exactly. They may seem to be reckoned only in pennies, whereas the gains to be had from a successful full employment policy or from rapid technological advance may seem to be reckoned in pounds.
That is a little contradictory, of course; but what he is trying to get at is that it is much better to develop efficient production at home than it is to worry about trying to find freer trade policies abroad. In addition, if we are able to produce better products in Canada, and sell them at world market prices, we will establish full employment without asking trade concessions of any kind. And looking at our position at the moment as that of a young nation hitherto engaged in primary industry, and now putting its neck out into manufacturing industry, we cannot expect industrial Europe or the United States to give us the red carpet treatment. They certainly will not if we go into anything like government subsidies for exports.
I think we have already gone too far with government subsidies for exports in many cases, and the emphasis in this new department, if it is set up, should definitely be placed on efficiency. That efficiency can best come by individual, free enterprise, and not by setting up more crown corporations which

are expensive and unfair to private enterprise. This party, for one, firmly stands behind free enterprise.
In connection with exploration I would like to suggest to the government that much can be done in the way of exploration, even in the Northwest Territories and areas above the Arctic circle. It is high time we set up a full geodetic and mineral survey of all our resources to find out exactly what we have. I suggest there are a good many jobs to be provided by this exploration, and surely it would be better to hire a few thousand men to find out where our roads and railroads to the north should go in order to reach the rich deposits, instead of wasting thousands of miles of roads and rails to reach inferior beds of ore and other natural resources.
I suggest something could also be done in the tax atmosphere. The proposed department should consult freely with the Department of National Revenue to see if something can be done taxwise to encourage enterpreneurs to go into research and development of our own resources. The Department of National Defence might well be consulted. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that many things like oil and steel are just as important to defence as to anything else, especially when they are turned into fuel for tanks or shells for guns. It might be that the people in charge of defence would recommend more efficient networks of roads and railways to service supplies in time of disruption and war.
I wish to refer once more to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, at page 62:
There will be a temptation to forget that what is being tested is no less than the vigour and resiliency of free societies and that, in such times, the continuance of comparatively inefficient production may be an expensive luxury.
Surely the men who wrote this book and who occupy the treasury benches cannot repudiate this; therefore I would expect them to lean away from socialism. It is the resilience of our modern free society on the North American continent which is under test. I think before we go ahead with this type of planning we should make up our minds on that big question: are we socialists, or are we not? If we are socialists, this kind of planning is going to end up in economic dictatorship, and that would be fatal to our way of life. If this department, when it is set up, is to preserve free enterprise, I think we had better take a good look at this act and make sure that we do not give dictatorial powers to the proposed minister.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I am not anxious to hold up second
27, 1963	1669
Establishment of Industry Department reading of this bill; the only reason I speak now is that the remarks I make would not be appropriate in committee when we are going over the bill clause by clause. I imagine that the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury) was surprised to hear from the last speaker that he is introducing socialism to Canada. I imagine he sees his new department as a means of strengthening Canadian capitalism rather than performing any other purpose.
There seem to be some misgivings on the part of some opposition speakers with regard to the wisdom of establishing a new department of government. Conservative party speakers have suggested that this could well be part of the Department of Trade and Commerce; that the Department of Trade and Commerce should be renamed the department of trade and industry. They do not question the advisability of establishing an agency of government to assist manufacturing industry, but they do not think there should be a new department. I am not entirely opposed to this idea of a department of trade and industry, but I think the question is rather academic. I am sure the government are determined that they are going to bring in this new department, and we might as well talk to that particular point.
I suppose that in the future this new department will concern itself with the productive manufacturing industries and the Department of Trade and Commerce will confine itself to those industries concerned with distribution and marketing. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has a fear of what he described as multiplying bureaucratic control. I am not one of those who fear the growth of government; I think modern industrial society requires much more government than the so-called good old days of the past. But I think we should examine each new proposal for a government department or agency carefully, to see whether it is really needed. May I suggest that at the same time as the government is giving birth to this new department they might kill off one which is already in existence. I refer to the Department of Defence Production. I think as such it could be eliminated. I am not referring to the minister being eliminated; just the department. The functions of the staff of the Department of Defence Production could, I think, be taken over by the new department of industry.
I have here the report of the Department of Defence Production for the year 1962, and I note at page 42 that the department has a staff of 1,520. It seems to me that many of these people could be used to do the type
1G70	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department of job which is envisaged for the new department of industry. I note, too, that the Department of Defence Production has a number of branches; the aircraft branch, the armaments branch, the electronics branch, the machine tool branch and the shipbuilding branch. Also, I believe the minister said today they have groups now working with the automobile industry. It seems to me that this basic structure could be used and new branches added for new types of industrial groups; then we could cut down the multiplicity of departments by eliminating one and transferring its functions to the new department and as much as possible use the employees who are already there.
When the minister speaks later I should like to hear from him whether the small business branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce is going to be incorporated in the department of industry. I think this branch has not been given the funds or the staff to do the kind of work it should do. I would be very interested to know whether there is any change contemplated in that direction Any other questions I have concerning the department, Mr. Speaker, can remain for the committee stage; but I should like to reiterate my suggestion that we should eliminate the Department of Defence Production and have simply one department.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, coming from a constituency where industry plays a very important part, I cannot miss this opportunity to say a few words about the measure under consideration.
Of course, like all other members of the house, I am deeply concerned to see that our industry and trade keep on developing and any measure or effort that would increase production and, consequently, trade, cannot but be supported without question by one and all.
However, according to some members on the other side of the house who have taken part in the debate, it seems that we should, on this side, adopt all the measures presented, without asking questions and without studying them thoroughly.
Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that what we heard during the days that immediately followed the budget speech amply warrant our asking questions before giving our support to the different measures which are submitted to us. It would seem that the present government have not given enough consideration to many of the pieces of legislation which they introduce in the house.


I should like to make a few remarks about the statements of both the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) and the hon. member for Toronto-Broadview (Mr. Hahn). Both said that before introducing this measure, the government should have made sure that there was a need for it. That is what I am asking myself, Mr. Speaker. Is it really necessary to set up a department to increase our trade and to stimulate industry in Canada?
To hear my hon. friends speak, you would think that under the previous government there was general stagnation in this country and that our trade was on the brink of bankruptcy, that it was going down instead of increasing.
However, Mr. Speaker, looking at the figures, we note that under the former Conservative government, foreign trade as well as domestic trade have constantly increased. And to clear up any apprehension or any doubt in the minds of my friends opposite, I will put on Hansard a few figures illustrating the rate of development of our trade under the administration of Right Hon. John Diefenbaker's Conservative government.
The figures that I shall quote, Mr. Speaker, are from the December 29, 1962 edition of the review entitled The Economist. We can see from those figures that the rate of economic growth has been higher in Canada, in 1962, than in any other country, and the following comparison proves that what I have just said is true. In Canada, the increase has been 8 per cent while in Italy, it was 6.3 per cent; in the United States, it was 5 per cent; in Japan, 4.5 per cent; in Sweden and in Norway, 4 per cent; in Germany, 3.6 per cent; in Belgium, 3.2 per cent; in the Netherlands, 2.5 per cent and in Great Britain, 1 per cent.
All of which goes to show beyond any doubt, Mr. Speaker, that when our friends opposite claim we were leading trade and business in this country to bankruptcy, that is absolutely false.
When one looks at the advance made by the whole Canadian production since 1957, one finds that it has increased by 26.6 per cent. Canadian production, which in 1957 stood at $31.9 billion, had risen in 1962 to $40.4 billion.
As for our exports, Mr. Speaker, for the months of January to October 1957, they amounted to $4,006 million, while for the same period in 1962, they had reached $5,240 million, an increase of 30.8 per cent.

That, Mr. Speaker, certainly had its effect on the labour market because, during the years mentioned, that is from 1957 to 1962, there were half a million more workers than at the time we took office, in 1957.
If this government wants to take measures to encourage further our trade, very well. But I believe that the measure now before us will lead especially to the setting up of a team of technicians and employees of all types, with the result that more importance, more influence and more control will be given to bureaucracy.
I think that we should stop a minute and take a good look at this measure. As for me, I am prepared to co-operate as much as possible so that our workers in the plants, which is our first step towards trade, can have an even more regular work week, based on a greater production.
I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate, if the present government wants to increase our foreign trade in particular, to continue the practice started by the minister of trade and commerce who preceded the one now in charge of that department.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we sent to foreign countries trade missions whose excellent work resulted in a great number of orders for our Canadian industrialists. I feel we should study that possibility further in order to extend that service we had already started.
I will probably have other remarks to make when the measure is to be given further consideration, but for the moment, like my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) I wish to point out that the recent measure imposing an 11 per cent tax on construction materials, is liable to hurt greatly the development of our trade. I think I should not miss the opportunity to urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to help his colleague the proposed minister of industry, by removing as soon as possible this tax which will result in unemployment and a higher cost of living.
The present department has a staff with the required qualifications to serve the nation efficiently, especially that sector of our national economy. In my opinion, if we call upon people who have neither the practical experience nor the know-how of our present civil servants who have been working in this field for a large part of their lives, we not only make a mistake, but perhaps also deprive ourselves of the knowledge and experience
27, 1963	1671
Establishment of Industry Department that those persons can make available to the industry and trade in general.
I shall conclude my remarks by saying that the best thing the present government can do is go on leading our Canadian trade on the road to progress where the previous government had put it, and everybody will surely find it beneficial.
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: We are dealing tonight in this house with an important matter-the creation of a new department of government. Sometimes my memory, going back more years than I like to recall, reminds me of something I learned as a school boy about the burial of Sir John Moore:
We buried him darkly at dead of night,
The sods with our bayonets turning.
I am wondering if we are not burying the Department of Trade and Commerce, "the sods with our bayonets turning", without our having a much closer look at the obsequies of this department. I do not think we should allow the department to sink into oblivion over the realm of forgetfulness, without discussing the matter for just a moment or two.
I was particularly interested in this matter, Mr. Speaker, and this afternoon I did some checking into the creation of various departments. I do not know the historical background to this-the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) has a knowledge of history even greater than mine-but I think when you read through the authorities respecting the ministers of the various departments, the only fact of this character to which you will find reference is the fact that the minister of trade and commerce is to be a member of Her Majesty's privy council. Apparently no other minister, Mr. Speaker, was entitled to that prerogative when that department was first created. I presume this is an inheritance from the year 1867, and we have had some overriding legislation dealing with this in the meantime. But I think the Secretary of State, whose knowledge of history, as I say, is even greater than mine, will be rather intrigued when he looks back through the departments and finds that the minister of trade and commerce shall be a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could add to the hon. gentleman's store of current history by saying that there is no intention whatsoever of having a funeral or
1672	HOUSE OF
Establishment of Industry Department
anything else for the Department of Trade and Commerce. The only department that is going to be affected directly by this legislation is the Department of Defence Production, which has not quite such a long history.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reference of the Secretary of State. There have been so many funerals around here in the last few days in departments of other ministers that I certainly appreciate his comments in this regard. But in any event, whether the minister minimizes it or not, I suggest to the house leader, through you, sir, that this legislation which is before us tonight does minimize, and minimize substantially, the area, shall I say the prerogative, which heretofore had been occupied by the minister and the Department of Trade and Commerce. When I say that I am not reflecting in any way at all upon the minister, who I understand from press references and in moving the bill this afternoon would, if parliament sees fit to pass this legislation, become minister of the new department of industry. I can pay my tribute to him. Going back over a good many years, when I was not even a member of the House of Commons, I came to him when he was a deputy minister of a department, and may I say that he was an exceptionally able deputy. I have never forgotten the good advice, suggestions, consultations and conferences which we had. If it is necessary to have a department of industry presided over by a minister, I am quite sure that the man who has been suggested, in other words the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury), could not be bettered. If the proposed minister, the present Minister of Defence Production, and I could sit down in the secret conclaves of my room over a glass of lemon juice, or something of that kind, where we could discuss the organization of this department, my guess is that he would be the first to suggest that there should not be the bifurcation which is now taking place within the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. gentleman say lemon juice or Lemon Hart?


George Clyde Nowlan: At this early hour of the evening, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. gentleman from Newfoundland, whose mind naturally goes to concoctions to which we in Nova Scotia are not addicted, could even think of Lemon Hart; but if he has that in mind, far be it for me to disillusion him, because it is only three minutes to


ten and I am sure he would be able to clarify his mind on that situation.
However, I really have a tremendous sympathy for the present Minister of Defence Production under this bill, which we will be discussing further, depending upon the agreements reached between the house leaders, I presume tomorrow morning. All of us in this house remember the way in which he stood up in his place a few days ago, having come back from Washington and told us of the problems with which he had been confronted, how he hoped that we could engage in more sales of defence mechanisms to the United States, how we had to accommodate the Americans by buying more from them. But we were assured by the minister in charge of defence production that there was a reasonable chance that Canada might engage in selling proportionately as much to the Americans; that we might maintain an uneasy balance in view of the balance of payments problems.
Now, in addition to that, the hon. gentleman, who is obviously overworked in trying to accomplish that end, has to concern himself with something about area development, whatever that may mean-and in that matter I would refer him to the way the provinces have dealt with this problem. And then he has to deal with the overriding problem of developing the industrial life of this country. I have heard of superman, but certainly the Minister of Defence Production, if the press reports are right and if he has to deal with these problems with which I have suggested he may be confronted, deserves the prayers and best wishes of all members of the House of Commons.
With that, Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I hear some hon. members saying "carried". We are not at this stage concluding the obsequies of a department which has rendered so much to the service of Canada. May I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the house leader give us some information with regard to future plans?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very happy to. I have conferred with hon. gentlemen opposite and I think there is a general disposition to accept a suggestion that was made in fact last Friday, I think by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, that perhaps we

might all benefit by celebrating the 1st of July in some place else than here. I believe there is agreement, which could be recorded and therefore be an order of the house, that we should take the supply motion on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, instead of on Monday and Tuesday; that it would be understood that if there is an amendment and a subamendment, the vote would come at 9.30 on Tuesday. If there is only an amendment and no subamendment, the vote would come at 9.45, so that the time left on Wednesday would be available for general grievances. It would also be clearly understood that the supply motion would last the whole of Wednesday-that is to say until six o'clock-and that the private members hour would be deferred until a later date in the session. The vote on the main motion would then come at a quarter to six on Wednesday. If there is general agreement in the house to that effect, then I think it might be so ordered.


Gordon Minto Churchill: For the record, Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement with that proposal.


Robert Norman Thompson: We are happy to agree with this suggestion. I think that in addition to it being good policy as far as we in the house are concerned, it would be good for us to remember Canada day as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to agree, and just to get in something different may I say that we feel it will be good for all the staff.
Business of the House


John Whitney Pickersgill: With regard to the business for tomorrow, we will continue with not a funeral but a new birth; and I hope the labour pains will be over quite early tomorrow and that the new department will be born. When that happy event has taken place it is my hope and expectation that the Atlantic development board resolution can be got through. We would not, of course, attempt to go on with the bill, which the rules would not allow us to do anyway; but after that is done we might perhaps make a beginning on the second reading of the bill respecting the economic council. That would probably be enough business to last until five o'clock tomorrow.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think that is the understatement of the year.


Mr. Barnett:: Perhaps the house leader would tell us whether we should come prepared to wear pink or blue ribbons?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, I would suggest that the ribbons be "red", and the bill as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the procedure suggested by the Secretary of State agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
107
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 28, 1963