1963-01-28

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a question of personal privilege arising out of a statement made by the Prime Minister in the house on Friday as reported in Hansard at page 3135. I have just had an opportunity of comparing that with the statement as it actually appeared in the press release issued by my office as to what I did say. The Prime Minister was quoting from a statement I made in Toronto on defence policy and he said:
I quote:
'Canada should contribute to the strategic nuclear deterrent."
At the time, Mr. Speaker, I raised the question that this was a misquotation. I asked the Prime Minister if he would read again the paragraph from which he was supposed to be quoting. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance of reviewing the text released and from which the Prime Minister was quoting. The Prime Minister only omitted one word, Mr. Speaker, from the sentence in question, but it was an important word. He omitted the word "not". The statement I made read "Canada should not contribute to the strategic nuclear deterrent".


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The document I had before me was as I read it. I say to the hon. gentleman that if the document was incorrect, that is the one I sent to Hansard. In the face of his explanation, as always may I say that I accept it.

On the orders of the day:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on Friday the Prime Minister quoted from a document which was a report of a statement I had made, and in view of the fact that the report he quoted differed in a vital respect from all other reports issued by my office, would the Prime Minister table
now or tomorrow the document in question from which he was quoting so that it may be identified and, if necessary, corrected?



SEARCH AND RESCUE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I am sure the members of the House of Commons and Canadians everywhere will be profoundly thankful at the good news that the Norseman aircraft, which was the object of so wide a search between Payne bay and Fort Chimo in Arctic Quebec, has been found and that all eight people aboard are well and now safely at Fort Chimo.
Some further details have reached us in which the house might be interested, Mr. Speaker. The pilot's name is Paul-Joseph Garon. There were six Eskimos on board and the northern administrator, Mr. A. F. Flucke. The Eskimos were Mrs. Lizzie Unga Kauki, who was 67 years of age; Mrs. Susie Kudluk, 49 years of age and her children, Jonas, 17, Marcussie, 14 and Victoria, 12; and Miss Mary Adlook, 35.
Word of the whereabouts of the downed aircraft was brought to Fort Chimo shortly before eight o'clock last night by the pilot of the aircraft and a young Eskimo, probably 17 year old Jonas, who struggled into Fort Chimo after a 60 mile trek in blistering January weather to bring the news of the aircraft's whereabouts.
Savage winter weather has made communications with Fort Chimo unusually difficult since the R.C.A.F. search began, but we have learned than an Otter aircraft of the Quebec provincial police flew to the area of the downed aircraft and brought the party in. We know, too, that the Norseman had a good supply of food aboard, including a load of seal meat that the Eskimos were taking to friends at Fort Chimo, and that they built a snow house as shelter from the weather.
What started as a routine flight of a northern administrator going about his duties on a winter day has become a story of courage and resourcefulness in the best Arctic tradition. We thank all those who were active in the search which brought about this successful conclusion.

Questions



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Fisher: 1.	What is the definition given by the Department of National Revenue (taxation division) to the procedure known colloquially amongst taxation accountants as "surplus strips"?
2.	What estimate does the department make of the number of surplus strips carried out in Canada in 1961 and 1962, and the estimated amount of money saved by the corporate taxpayers from going into the taxation revenue?
3.	Has the department considered appealing any surplus strip to the income tax appeal board and beyond in order to determine the legality of such a procedure?
4.	If so, what sections of the Income Tax Act and its regulations are considered relevant to the matter?


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carlelon):: Return tabled.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he would consider switching the answer to question No. 1,174 to a starred question instead of an order for return so the question and answer may be printed in Hansard. I ask this, Mr. Speaker, because the minister informed me there was no particular reason for not giving an oral answer except to save time. I would very much like to have the answer printed in Hansard, as was my intention when I asked the question.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is a very lengthy reply-


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, it is very short, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It would require unanimous consent to revert to questions, and I do not know whether this consent is forthcoming.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us proceed one step at a time. We are now going to leave orders of the day-


Mr. Knowles:: We have not completed orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, at the end of orders of the day, we will revert to questions. [Later:]


Mr. Speaker:: May we revert to questions, and the Minister of National Revenue will now give an oral reply to question No. 1,174.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I think the request of the hon. gentleman from Port Arthur was that it be

printed in Hansard. I have no objection to reading it, but I do not have a copy.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it a lengthy reply?


Hugh John Flemming: It has
a lot of figures in it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps then it could be taken as read and included in Hansard. Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer above referred to is as follows:]
1.	There is no specific definition of the term "surplus strips". It is frequently used to refer to any procedures that have been followed for the purpose of transferring surpluses from corporations to their shareholders with a minimum of tax payment.
2.	The department can make no estimate of the number entered into in 1961 and 1962. Most returns for 1962 have not yet been filed. As regards 1961, it is pointed out that usually no income is reported from these transactions, and that the department could not list them without first investigating to determine the facts of each case.
3.	The department will assess, and carry through to appeal if necessary, for all taxes payable under the provisions of the act.
4.	The relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, depending on the various circumstances are sections 6, 8, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 67, 68, 81, 82, 851, 105, 105A, 105B, 105C, 108, 137, 138.


FOOD PURCHASES BY CANADIAN-EUROPEAN SHIPS
Mr. Dumont: 1.	What proportion of the food supplies used on ships plying between Canada and Europe is bought in Canada?
2.	What quantities of milk, butter, pork, beef, and potatoes are bought outside Canada by the said above companies that have Montreal as their terminal point?
3.	Do most shipping companies buy food supplies in Europe and make their round trips without buying any in Canada?


Mr. Halpenny:: No information.


BANKRUPTCIES AND INSOLVENCIES
Mr. Matheson: 1.	Using 1956 as the base year, what was the percentage of increase or decrease in the number of bankruptcies and insolvencies under federal legislation during each of the years 1957 to 1962 inclusive?
2.	What were the total estimated liabilities of bankruptcies and insolvencies for the period 19521956 and for the period 1958-1962?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: 1. A total of 2,849 bankruptcies was reported in 1956. Using 1956 as the base year, the following is

the percentage of increase	in the number of
bankruptcies during each	of the years 1957
to 1961 inclusive:	
1957	22.36 per cent
1958	13.34 per cent
1959	13.65 per cent
1960	27.80 per cent
1961	23.24 per cent
The final figures for the	year 1962 are not
yet available.	
2. The total estimated liabilities for bank-	
ruptcies reported in the	years 1952-1956
inclusive are as follows:	
1952	$ 25,155,493
1953	36,699,090
1954	56,707,577
1955	50,040,082
1956	61,957,921
	
for the period	$230,560,163
Questions
The total estimated liabilities for bankruptcies reported in the years 1958-1961 inclusive are as follows:
1958	$ 62,228,121
1959	80,489,209
1960	160,008,759
1961	99,932,628
Total estimated liabilities	
for the period	$402,658,717
The final figures for the year 1962 are not yet available.


CONVICTIONS FOR CERTAIN INDICTABLE OFFENCES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,271-Mr. Maiheson: Commencing with 1954 what percentage of the population was convicted each year for the following classes of indictable offences, namely (a) murder, capital and non-capital, and manslaughter
(b)	forgery and other offences relating to currency
(c)	infractions under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act?
Mr. Nesbitt:: Number of children 7 15 found delinquent of selected offences, Canada 1954-1960 and the percentage of the population 7-15 years of age these children represent.
Murder and	Forgery and	Opium andManslaughter	Currency Offences	Narcotic Drug ActNo.	%of. Population	No.	%of_ Population	No.	% of Population1954	32	.001	1955	
2	.00008	29	.001	1956	
1	.00004	39	.001	1957	
1	.00003	28	.001	1958	
1	.00003	36	.001	1959	
1	.00003	27	.001	1	.000031960	-	36	.001	
Number of persons convicted of selected offences, Canada-1954-1960(0 and percentage of population 16 years of age and over.
Murder and
Year	Manslaughter
%of
No.	Population
1954	
96 (2)	.00091955	
59 '[DOT]*)	.00061956	
94 (2)	.00091957	
57	.00051958	
56	.00051959	
75	.00071960	
60	.0005Forgery and	Opium andCurrency Offences	Narcotic Drug ActNo.	%of Population	No.	%of Population711	.007	306	.003726	.007	349	.003692	.007	382	.004784	.007	400	.0041,015	.009	488	.004897	.008	565	.0051,096	.009	467	.004
0) Data for 1961 will be available in April 1963.
(2) These figures include also persons convicted of motor manslaughter.

Questions


* EFFECTS OF RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT IN NORTH
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	Has the government received any information concerning the level of strontium 90 among Alaskan Eskimos and, if so, what is the nature of such information?
2.	Has the government received a copy of a resolution adopted by the technical committee for caribou preservation requesting a federal investigation into the question of radioactive fall-out and its effects on humans and animals in northern Canada and, if so, what steps have been taken by the federal government to investigate this problem?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: 1. Yes; some research results have very recently been published and government scientists are aware of the preliminary indications of other research now in progress.
2.	No, since the formal minutes of the technical committee for caribou preservation have not yet been received. However, officials of the Canadian wildlife service were present and took an active part in the discussions of the committee. Over the past two years the service has been investigating the distribution and extent of radioactive fall-out in relationship to cervidae in Canada, in collaboration with the department of biology, University of Ottawa. A priority program of investigation into other aspects of the problem is now being developed by my department and the Department of National Health and Welfare.


RETURNS TO SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE
Mr. Berger: 1.	Are life insurance companies required to submit returns to the superintendent of life insurance, disclosing the names of those persons or corporations holding shares in said life insurance companies, and the capacity in which said shares are held by such persons or corporations?
2.	Are these returns omitted from the annual report of the superintendent of insurance to the Minister of Finance and, if so, for what reason and on what authority?


Mr. Graffiey:: 1. "Yes" to the first part; "No" to the second part.
2.	"Yes" to the first part; As respects the second part, the main reason for the omission in recent years has been to avoid facilitating the sale of control of companies through publication of the names of individual shareholders; as respects the third part, in the absence of any specific requirement that the lists of shareholders be included, no authority is needed for their omission.


KESWICK, ONT. POST OFFICE
Mr. Addison: Has the Post Office Department investigated the possibility of acquiring land, and building a post office, in the town of Keswick, Ontario, and, if so, what are the results of this investigation and what action is contemplated?


Mr. McCleave:: Yes. Sites are being considered by the Department of Public Works in co-operation with the Post Office Department. It is intended to prepare plans for a new building after a site has been acquired.


PENSIONS TO FORMER MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Howard: Since June 18, 1962, have any former members of parliament received a pension pursuant to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and, if so, with respect to each such former member, what is (a) his name (b) the amount of his pension?


William Heward Grafftey: Former members of parliament qualifying for pension under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act on and after June 18, 1962-
Former Member Amount	of Pension*
Aitken, Miss Margaret	$1,620
Boivin, Marcel	3,000
Bourget, Maurice	3,000
Browne, Hon. W. J.	2,001.37
Charlton, John A.	3,000
Dumas, Armand	2,720.25
Hamilton, John Borden	1,440
Hamilton, Hon. W. McL.	1,620
Lennard, F. E.	3,000
Macdonnell, Hon. James McK.	3,000
McGregor, Hon. Robert H.	3,000
Michaud, Herve J.	1,620
Michener, Hon. D. R.	1,620
Murphy, J. W.	3,000
Pallett, John	1,530
Ratelle, J. G.	2,721.37
Rea, C. E.	1,260
Regier, Erhart	1,620
Richard, J. A.	2,701.12
Small, Robert H.	1,620
White, H. O.	3,000
*Section 16(a) of this act provides for a	
reduction of these pensions by the amount of pension payable to a former member under the Old Age Security Act whether or not he applies for that pension so long as he is otherwise eligible to receive it.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


Mr. Maiher: Has the government given consideration to extending the old age pension to unmarried women or widows aged 60?


Mrs. Casselman:: As this is a matter of government policy any announcement would be made by the government in the usual manner.



VOTING BY HOSPITAL PATIENTS

Mr. Mather: Has the government given consideration to providing voting facilities to persons confined in hospitals during federal elections?


John George Diefenbaker: This relates to a matter of government policy. Any announcement in connection therewith will be made in the usual manner.



RAINY RIVER, ONT.-COMPLAINTS RESPECTING MAIL DELIVERY

Mr. Benidickson: 1.	How many complaints have been received by the Post Office Department from residents of the district of Rainy River relating to the new mail delivery arrangements that were set up by the Post Office Department after the C.N.R. cut its passenger train service in October 1962 from 6 days per week frequency to 3 days per week frequency?
2.	From what persons have such complaints been received?


Mrs. Fairclough:: 1. None.
2. Not applicable.



INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY AGREEMENTS

Mr. Laing: 1.	In how many, and by what designation are they known, does Canada participate officially in international commodity agreements; and on what date was each originally signed?
2.	In which of these agreements is commodity output in Canada affected either by direct undertaking or by voluntary acceptance of quotas?
3.	If the answer to No. 2 is affirmative in respect of any commodity, state in which commodities the government of Canada has accepted the principle of limiting output and to what extent in each case?
4.	Was the government of Canada (a) represented (b) consulted (c) asked to approve the decisions of
(i)	the consortium which met in Mexico city and agreed to production quotas on lead and zinc
(ii)	the consortium which met in New York and agreed to crop limitation and price increase for coffee?
5.	Are there any cases of commodity agreements to which Canada is a participant in which the agreement has not been presented to parliament for ratification and, if so, state the cases?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 1. There are four international commodity agreements in which Canada participates officially, namely: international tin agreement originally signed June 28, 1954; international sugar agreement, originally signed August 24, 1953; international coffee agreement, originally signed October 16, 1962; 1949 international wheat agreement, signed March 23, 1949; 1953 International wheat agreement, signed April 13, 1953; 1956 international wheat agreement, signed May 16, 1956; 1959 international wheat agreement, signed April 22, 1959;	1962 international
wheat agreement, signed May 11, 1962.
2.	None.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Ci) (a) Canada was represented by an official delegation with industry advisers at the third session of the international lead and zinc study group in Mexico city, March 20-24, 1961. There was no intergovernmental agreement to production quotas on lead and zinc.
27507-3-200
Questions
(ii) (a) Canada was represented officially at the United Nations international coffee conference in New York city, July 9-August 24, 1962. There has been no agreement to date to limit coffee production nor is there anything in the agreement which specifies price increases for coffee. The agreement attempts to stabilize world coffee prices at a level not lower than that prevailing in 1962.
5.	The tin and sugar agreements were ratified by Canada and then tabled in parliament; the wheat agreements were accepted by Canada after having been tabled in parliament. The coffee agreement was ratified on November 20, 1962, and has not yet been tabled.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON BANKING AND FINANCE

Mr. Langlois: 1.	Has the royal commission on banking and finance made an interim report to the government suggesting or recommending an increase in the interest rate on reserve funds and, if so, what is the suggested rate?
2.	Who are the members of the commission, and what is the profession of each?
3.	When does the government expect to receive the final report from the commission?


John George Diefenbaker: 1. No.
2.	Hon. Dana Harris Porter, Chief Justice of Ontario; Mr. W. Thomas Brown, M.B.E., investment dealer; Mr. James Douglas Gibson, banker; Mr. Gordon L. Harrold, agriculturist; Mr. Paul H. Leman, corporation executive; Mr. John C. MacKeen, corporation executive; Dr. W. A. Mackintosh, vice chancellor, Queen's University.
3.	The government expects to receive the report of the commission by September 1963.



RECORD OF PERFORMANCE BRANCH, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT

Mr. Beer: 1.	How many persons were employed by the production and marketing branch of the Department of Agriculture on record of performance work (dairy cattle) on January 1, 1962, and on January 1, 1963, (a) office staff (b) field staff?
2.	What are the names of those persons who retired or left this branch for any reason during 1962?
3.	What are the names of those persons who have been added to the staff during 1962 (a) office staff (b) field staff?


Mr. Jorgenson:: 1. The number of persons employed by the production and marketing branch of the Department of Agriculture on record of performance work (dairy cattle) on, January 1, 1962 was (a) office staff-40 (b) field staff-187 and on January 1, 1963 was (a) office staff-35 (b) field staff-184.
2. The names of those persons who retired or left this branch during 1962 are as follows: (a) Office staff: V. Archer, J. F. Boehmer,

Questions
M. Bedard, Mrs. G. Duguay, D. Findlay, L. J. Powers, Mrs. S. Pilotte, R. Fournier, Mrs. F. Sievenpiper; (b) Field staff: B. A. Pitman, R. Dubois, K. R. Broadworth, D. S. Fraser, L. O. Gourlay, D. J. Nicholson, J. T. Van Egmond, A. Waide, P. J. Le Quellec.
3. The names of those persons who have been added to the staff during 1962 are as follows: (a) Office staff: Mrs. J. Nadeau, A. Fournier, R. Fournier, Mrs. F. Sievenpiper, (b) Field staff: L. G. Ferguson, T. Farren, H. Grieger, H. S. Ritchie, J. C. Sporring, J. L. Leslie.



PERMANENT LIST OF VOTERS

Mr. Mather: Is the government giving consideration to the establishment of a permanent voters list for Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: This relates to a matter of government policy. Any announcement in connection therewith will be made in the usual manner.



CONSTITUENCY SPOKESMEN ON CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Harley: Does the government have representatives in each riding to announce awarding of government contracts, extension of post office facilities and other changes in government services affecting the riding and, if so, who is Halton's representative?


John George Diefenbaker: No.



EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

Mr. Burgess: Does the government propose to extend assistance for winter works past March 31, this year?


Mr. Hales:: If the question pertains to the municipal winter works incentive program, 1962-63, the answer is that this program will be in effect until April 30, 1963.



CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS

Mr. Badanai: What is the number of charcoal manufacturing plants in Canada and the location of each?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There are eight main producers of charcoal in Canada; 5 in Quebec; 1 in Ontario; 1 in Alberta and 1 in British Columbia. These do not include smaller producers, such as farmers, who produce limited supplies of charcoal.



BOUNTY ON DOGFISH

Mr. Mather: Is the Department of Fisheries considering the establishment of a dogfish bounty to encourage development of this industry in line with potential market possibilities?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: In the last five years, the Department of Fisheries has paid subsidies to encourage the catching of dogfish for meal production and oil production. In neither case has the result been satisfactory from the point of view of reducing stocks. However, I am prepared to consider any new proposals which offer a reasonable chance of success.



* CANADIAN IMMIGRATION FACILITIES IN POLAND

Mr. Haidasz: 1.	What were the facilities of the Canadian department of immigration in Poland in 1958?
2.	What are the present facilities?
3.	Who performs the medical examinations of prospective immigrants?


Mr. McGee:: 1. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration had no facilities of its own for the examination of immigrants in Poland in 1958.
2.	The processing of applications for the admission of immigrants sponsored by residents of Canada is carried out by the Canadian embassy in Warsaw.
3.	Immigrants from Poland are medically examined upon arrival in Canada; however, a preliminary examination is carried out by private practitioners in Poland. The results of their examinations are forwarded to Canada through the Canadian embassy in Warsaw.



COMMITTEE ON COMMUTER SYSTEM FOR TORONTO AREA

Mr. Addison: Has the federal government been invited by the Ontario provincial government to place a representative on the special committee to study the establishment of a co-ordinated commuters' railway system for the Toronto metropolitan and surrounding area?


George Ernest Halpenny: A search of the records failed to indicate that any such invitation has been received.



CHANNEL AND HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES, LAKEHEAD

Mr. Badanai: What specific amount of the nearly $11,000,000 that the Department of Public Works anticipates spending on channel and harbour improvements from the St. Lawrence river to the lakehead is earmarked for the lakehead?


Robert Jardine McCleave: From April 1,	1962, to
March 31, 1963, the end of the current fiscal year, the department anticipates spending nearly $11,000,000 of which slightly over one million will have been spent in the lakehead area.



* REGISTRATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT AND BENEFIT RECIPIENTS

Mr. Deschalelels: 1.	What are the latest statistics of the unemployment insurance commission concerning the number of unemployed persons who registered for employment at the offices of the commission?
2.	What are the latest statistics of the unemployment insurance commission concerning the number of unemployed persons who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits?


Alfred Dryden Hales: 1 and 2. Figures are not compiled on the number of unemployed persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits on specified dates. The number of active claimants for unemployment insurance benefits on November 30th was 374,191. At that date the number of persons registered for employment at local offices of the national employment service was 456,756.
(Translation):



* SALARY INCREASES FOR CERTAIN CLASSES OF CIVIL SERVANTS IN MONTREAL

Mr. Deschatelets: 1.	Does the government intend to increase immediately the salaries of assistant clerks, clerks grades 1 and 2 and typists grades 1 and 2, employed by the income tax division in Montreal who were not included when increases were granted lately to certain classes of civil servants?
2.	Does the government intend to revise immediately the annual increase of $60 a year granted recently to the telephone operators and stenographers grades 1 and 2 employed by the income tax division in Montreal?


William Heward Grafftey: 1. No.
2. No.



ST. EUSTACHE SUR LE LAC    ALLEGED REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. Drouin: Has the government received a request for the construction of a post office building at St. Eustache sur le Lac, in the constituency of Argen-teuil-Deux Montagnes and, if so, (a) who made the request (b) when was it received by the government (c) is it the intention of the government to comply with the request?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No. (a), (b) and (c), not applicable.
(Text):



N.B.-P.E.I. CAUSEWAY-SERVICES OF CONSULTANTS

Mr. Rideout: Has the government engaged Northumberland Consultants Limited to assist in planning the New Brunswick-Prince Edward Island causeway and, if so, on what date was this company engaged?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The three firms forming Northumberland Consultants Limited were retained on June 22, 1962, and the agreement with Northumberland Consultants Limited was signed December 26, 1962.
27507-3-2001
Orders for Returns



ERADICATION OF LAMPREY EELS, GREAT LAKES

Mr. Robinson: 1.	What work is being carried out in lake Superior to eradicate the lamprey?
2.	What results have been attained?
3.	What work, if any, is being carried out in lake Huron and Georgian bay to eradicate the lamprey?
4.	What work, if any, is being carried out in lake Michigan to eradicate the lamprey?


John Angus MacLean: 1. The fisheries research board of Canada and its counterpart in the United States are involved in programs to eradicate the sea lamprey in the great lakes. Thirteen streams on the Canadian side of lake Superior and fifteen on the American side were treated with lampricide (a selective poison to kill lamprey larvae) in 1962. Electrical barriers are being operated in known lamprey spawning streams on the Canadian and American sides of lake Superior. In 1962 eight such barriers were operated on the Canadian side and twenty nine on the American side for the purpose of assessing the lamprey control program. Stream surveys to discover lamprey spawning streams were conducted on 178 streams on the Ontario side of the lake in 1962. To date 503 tributary streams have been examined on the south shore of lake Superior.
2.	Catches of adult lamprey at electrical barriers in 1962 showed declines of approximately 78 per cent and 82 per cent on the Canadian and United States sides of the lake from the averages of catches over the past five years. The rate of wounds and scars in lake trout catches in 1962 in lake Superior was 5 per cent or less. The 1960 wounding rate was from 8 per cent to 12 per cent.
3.	To date a limited number of streams on the Canadian side of lake Huron have been examined and treated.
4.	To date United States fishery agencies have surveyed 357 streams tributary to lake Michigan. Eight of these streams were treated with lampricide in the Green Bay area in
1962.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Maiheson: 1.	How many graduate lawyers, by departments, were employed in the public service of Canada as of December 31, 1962?
2.	How many of these, by departments, were employed in a legal, as distinct from an administrative capacity?
3.	What progress has been made to implement the Glassco commission recommendations (a) to integrate legal services within the department of justice (b) to establish branch legal offices in centres across Canada?

Inquiries of the Ministry 'unemployment benefit payments

Question No. 1,323-Mr. Deschaielefs:
From January 1962 up to date, what were the amounts paid for each month as unemployment benefits?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Return tabled.


PIGEON RIVER, ONT.-REMOVAL OF BORDER CROSSING
Mr. Badanai: 1.	What is the situation surrounding the removal of the present border crossing from its location at Pigeon River, Ontario, to the new site at High Falls, Ontario?
2.	Has a contract been awarded for the construction of buildings to accommodate customs and Immigration offices at High Falls and, if so, what is the amount of the contract?
3. Will the present bridge at Pigeon River be removed and, if not, will it be put to any particular use?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement over the week end regarding the urgent necessity of getting ahead with estimates, would the right hon. gentleman explain to the house why, in the two Mondays of the resumed session, no supply motion has been moved, without which the estimates of any additional department cannot be dealt with?


Mr. Speaker:: I am just wondering whether the Leader of the Opposition might not rephrase his question. We are tending toward an argumentative or debative answer. I think that on reflection the hon. gentleman will see what I mean.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I rephrase the question in this way, then. Having regard to the fact that a supply motion has not been moved in the first two Mondays of the resumed session, would the Prime Minister give an assurance that a supply motion will be moved next Monday?


John George Diefenbaker: The order of business is usually made known to the house by the house leader. Having regard to the experience we have had on those supply motions which have been before the house in respect of the departments which were opened, and the degree to which they have been held up by the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thought from the beginning we were getting on to a patch of very thin ice here, and I was not far wrong.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the Prime
Minister's reply, surely I have the right to ask him whether he is aware that a supply motion can only take, at the most, two days.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that a supply motion can only take two days, but the six departments we have already opened are being held up-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we shall move to something else. Orders of the day are not an area for debating.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he is aware that only once since the opening of the house last September have the estimates of any department been called, apart from those of the Department of External Affairs which were called last Thursday for a special debate.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a straightforward question to the Prime Minister seeking information which I believe the house and the country are entitled to have. In view of the importance of there being parliamentary approval before the people's money is spent, will the Prime Minister at an early date take the house into his confidence and tell us what the government's plans are for dealing with the estimates for the current fiscal year?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I tried to give a completely straightforward recital of the situation a week ago today, and having done so the matter now rests with other members in the house.


An hon. Member:: Government without responsibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What plans is the government making to be sure that it will have the necessary money to pay civil service and other salaries on the 15th of February, at the end of February, on the 15th of March and at the end of March?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the question is quite hypothetical at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In the light of the statement he made last week that he was

going to introduce interim supply on Friday, can the minister now give some indication as to when that will be done?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: I do not recall the statement to which the hon. member has referred, Mr. Speaker, but the house leader will be announcing to the house when interim supply will be sought.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question. May I get some clarification from the house leader as to when interim supply will be introduced?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the business of the house for the next day is announced each evening before the house adjourns.
(Translation):



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister provided that receipts for charitable donations, which are an outrage against the clergy and the people, will be abolished and replaced by an equivalent tax reduction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel that the hon. member is expressing his opinion or his views rather than seeking information from the minister.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a press release which has just been issued by the minister of defence which purports to be an interpretation of the Prime Minister's speech of last Friday, January 25, as setting forth a definite policy for the acquisition of nuclear arms. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he accepts that as a proper interpretation of the speech which he made last Friday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my speech was very clear-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -very direct and very comprehensive. I do not think it requires any interpretation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the Prime Minister's
Inquiries of the Ministry reply may I ask a supplementary question. If the Prime Minister's speech was as clear as he said it was, why did the Minister of National Defence have to interpret it for him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are still in an argumentative mood.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister of defence took no part in the debate last week, as he indicated he might, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the defence estimates will be brought down quickly in order that the minister may clarify the statements which he has just released to the press?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question as to when estimates can be considered will depend upon motions to go into supply, and the acceptance by the house of the order in which the departments are opened.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of the extraordinary step taken by him in issuing a press release in which he has sought to give his interpretation of the remarks of the Prime Minister on Friday, are we to conclude as a result that the minister is satisfied with this course and that he now thinks this would preclude him from taking the necessary and normal step of resigning from the government in view of his differences with the Prime Minister?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I took no extraordinary steps. I was asked questions by various members of the press gallery, first of all immediately after five o'clock last Friday, as a matter of fact. I have answered various questions from various people, and in order not to have to deal with a dozen or 20 people individually I made a statement, and I think that statement stands for itself.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question if I may. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he saw and approved the press release issued this morning by the Minister of National Defence?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, answers or statements made by ministers following requests by the press are naturally not seen by the Prime Minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of National Defence who is carrying on the negotiations with the United States, referred to the other day by the Prime Minister and mentioned in the hon. gentleman's release this morning.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think it would be appropriate for me to release that information, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would it be that there are no negotiations being carried on?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is quite improper.



BOMARC BASES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Bur-rard):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In his speech on Friday, which all of us enjoyed, the Prime Minister said the government was renegotiating its commitments to NORAD. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the United States is renegotiating its arrangements with two NATO members, Italy and Turkey, and dismantling its nuclear bases in those countries, the Prime Minister will tell the house whether the United States has indicated to Canada that it wishes to renegotiate the arrangements it made with this country in 1959 to establish nuclear Bomarc bases in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think if the hon. member will consult Beauchesne, citation 171, he will see that in his opening remarks he rather ran afoul of paragraph (r), which says that no question shall "refer to debate... of the current session"; and Friday afternoon was certainly part of a debate in the current session.


Thomas Rodney Berger: May I rephrase my question by omitting the initial reference to the debate. The question was, in view of the fact that the United States has been renegotiating its arrangements with two NATO members, Italy and Turkey, and dismantling its nuclear bases in those countries, can the Prime Minister tell the house whether the United States has indicated to Canada that it wishes to renegotiate the arrangements it made with this country in 1959 to establish nuclear Bomarc bases in this country?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I set out the situation fully on Friday. In so far as communications between governments are concerned when negotiations are taking place, those communications are secret and are never asked for in the House of Commons. In giving that answer, however, I do not want any implication read

into it that anything in the nature of the request in question has or has not been made.


Thomas Rodney Berger: On a point of order, I believe the Prime Minister may not have apprehended-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There cannot be any question of referring to the nature of the reply. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate was rising a few moments ago.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The hon. member was not rising.


Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government's proposed clarification of Canada's role in NATO mean that the present government intends to seek a conventional forces role for Canada in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?


Malcolm MacInnis: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. What military value would the Bomarcs, armed with nuclear warheads, have for North American defence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that question is a rhetorical one and quite out of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him if one of the objectives of the present negotiations with the government of the United States in relation to Canada's role in NATO involves the scrapping of Bomarcs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is the same question that was asked the Prime Minister just a few minutes ago.
(Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Prime Minister. Does the government expect to increase the rate of family allowances in the forthcoming budget?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should be aware that the period allotted to orders of the day is not the proper time to reveal particulars concerning the budget.

(Text):



DEFENCE RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Herbert E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can he tell the house whether it is a fact that it cost the United States of America $10 million to put Canada's Alouette satellite into space last fall?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have no specific information as to what the cost was as far as the Thor that was used for the purpose is concerned.
(Translation):



OPPOSITION TO INCREASE IN MEMBERS' INDEMNITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the statement made by the hon. member for Port Arthur, which has been published in a newspaper, to the effect that those who would be opposed to an increase in members' salaries would risk acts of violence on the part of a group of members of this house, and since the Social Crediters have indicated they are opposed to an increase in members' salaries until an increase in family allowances has been granted, would the minister take steps to protect the other group of members against those acts of violence referred to in his statement?


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to draw the hon. member's attention, once and for all, I hope, that the period allotted to orders of the day is not the proper time to make statements or raise matters of this kind.
(Text):



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries supplementary to the question I asked him last Wednesday. Can the minister further inform the house whether the report of the recent meeting of the international north Pacific fisheries commission will be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries for consideration?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave previously.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I want to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him what progress is being made in translating the recommendations of Dr. Sinclair on licence limitation into legislation; and if this has been done will he present it to the house this session?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a firm statement as to what might transpire in the remaining part of this session, but at the moment there are no plans to introduce such legislation.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the rumoured resignation of the Minister of Justice is no longer-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Public works.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -a hypothetical matter, would the Prime Minister indicate that he will put the Columbia river draft treaty before a committee of the house so that it can be discussed prior to the departure of the Minister of Public Works?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman seems to be somewhat involved when he mentions the Minister of Justice because, of course, there has been no suggestion of his resignation. If he is referring to the Minister of Public Works, and I will try to get the hon. member back on the rails because he seems a little off, that matter has been dealt with on a number of occasions.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I corrected the suggestion that the question had to do with the Minister of Justice. It is the Minister of Public Works, and I believe the Prime Minister knows that he appears to be leaving this house without this matter having been discussed.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the supplementary question?
3160	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Would the Prime Minister answer my question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister give any indication when the Columbia river treaty will be put before a committee of the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in due course.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Lamy (St. Maurice-Laileche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Can the minister assure the house that he will take the necessary steps to put a stop to such television programs as the one carried over the C.B.C., Thursday, January 24 last, between 9 and 10 in the evening, entitled "Le petit monde du pere Gedeon"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will realize that it is not the proper time to ask a question on the control or censorship of the C.B.C.


Gérard Lamy: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think that the "morality" of the nation, Mr. Speaker, is something that concerns us.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his representations. He should now have his question put on the order paper.
(Text):



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE OF ROGERS PASS SECTION FOR WINTER TRAVEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the minister of northern affairs, national resources and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The leader of the band.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the statement made by the superintendent of the Revelstoke and Glacier national parks that the Rogers pass section of the trans-Canada highway will be kept open all winter to all traffic, period, will the minister say whether he stands behind that statement?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I presume that statement by the superintendent of the parks was made as the result


of a press release I made last October in which I said "I am confident the highway will be kept open although there will be delays while avalanches are being brought down and cleared from the road". I am happy to report to the house that during this very severe winter weather the highway has been closed for the shortest period. I should like further to inform the house that I did not clear this release through the Prime Minister's office.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we are getting quite a bit out in space on some of these replies as well as on the questions.
(Translation):



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Côté: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister tell the house whether he had the former Conservative member who was defeated and lost his deposit at the last general election make a statement on his behalf concerning the construction of three grain elevators in Chicoutimi?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will surely recognize that his question is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister still resort to patronage as regards construction projects?


Mr. Speaker:: Since the first question was out of order, the supplementary one is even more so.
(Text):



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES FLIGHT FROM LOS ANGELES TO MONTREAL BY FORMER PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, and ask if he can give us any information on the quixotic mercy flight from Los Angeles to Montreal made by the T.C.A. in which a former president of T.C.A., Mr. Symington was involved?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that his question is one which would be better placed on the order paper. He could get more information in that way. I have some difficulty in deciding why it is important that we should have the information at this stage.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think it is important that we should have this information at this time because there have been many confusing

Inquiries of the Ministry stories about this, and since a crown corpora- whether he would inform the house when he tion is involved I think we should have a expects to receive the report from the royal clear statement.	commission on health services?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will recognize that there are many confusing statements about many things coming from many sources. I do not believe they require clarification on orders of the day.



MESSENGERS AND CLEANING STAFF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of their great need, will the minister ask the commissioners of internal economy to review the case of the messengers and cleaning staff who serve us in this House of Commons, for whom no increases were provided on Friday?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the commissioners of internal economy to look over the record.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister had a request for a meeting to discuss R.C.M.P. matters from the Canadian association of university teachers, and if so has a date for such a meeting been set?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe a similar question was answered about the middle of last week. I may be wrong but it seems to me to be the case.


David Orlikow: It is not the same question.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Since I answered a question in almost the same form I have not received any request from that source for an appointment to discuss any matter. I can assure the hon. member that that organization is quite competent to handle these requests on its own behalf without it being made a matter for questions every day in the House of Commons.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister


John George Diefenbaker: I communicated with the chairman, Hon. Mr. Justice Hall, and he advised me that the expectation of himself and his colleagues was that it would be available in June.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and ask him whether he is in a position to tell us when we might have the proposed amendments to the Indian Act presented to the house.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said earlier in the session.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister give the house his counsel and advice on what appears to be the French secessionist movement led by Mr. de Gaulle?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that first of all he might be inviting a lengthy speech, certainly not the kind of reply given on orders of the day. Perhaps he could reserve his question until the estimates of the department, which are currently before the house, are being considered.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES SUGGESTED ROYAL COMMISSION TO STUDY CANADIAN CULTURAL SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One week ago today the Prime Minister, in answer to a question, stated that he intended to make a statement under motions concerning the question of biculturalism and the advisability of setting up a commission thereon, or as an alternative he would make a statement regarding a federal-provincial conference to look into the whole matter of biculturalism. He was going to make that statement last Tuesday, but it was postponed. I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister when he intends to make that statement.
3162	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): I hope to be in a position to advise on the date the day after tomorrow.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he can say when he proposes to bring down the budget for 1963-64.


George Clyde Nowlan: In due course and without undue delay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is seeking to repeat the question, and there are other members who wish to ask questions. He can ask his question in his turn.


Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him when he expects to be able to table the main estimates for 1963-64, without which there cannot be a budget?


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the main estimates are now in the hands of the printer. I cannot say exactly when they will be received, but I have asked that the printing be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible, in both languages, so they may be tabled at a relatively early date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister correctly reported in this morning's press when it is said he declared that a budget could not be brought down until the previous year's estimates had been concluded? If he has been incorrectly reported, would he like to correct the report now?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to correct anything of the kind. I said it would be inappropriate to bring in a budget without having passed the previous year's estimates, and I still so believe.
(Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question?


In view of the fact that several chartered banks have made a submission to the Porter commission and that several members of the commission are chartered bank directors, can the Minister of Finance give the house assurance that it will be kept informed of the decisions and intents of the Porter commission, regardless of the position of the commissioners?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member is voicing an opinion and that he is not actually seeking information.
(Text):



NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-87, to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board -Mr. Nowlan-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, just before we resume debate I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, in view of the fact that there has been some considerable discussion of this bill at the resolution stage and some considerable discussion of it on second reading, as we are now on clause 1, which is the only clause that will permit us to have a general discussion, is it his intention to make a statement with regard to the bill? The minister will recall that he spoke at the opening on the resolution stage, but on second reading the measure was spoken to by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and since that time we have not had any observation from the Minister of Finance.
I am wondering whether he intends, early in the discussion on this clause, to give us his reactions to the various suggestions and arguments that have been made.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I assumed there were others who would want to speak in a general way on clause 1, and I did not want to delay the discussion. I would be prepared to deal in a summary way with some of the arguments advanced, but I thought it much better to wait until other hon. members had a chance to discuss clause 1.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, may I, on behalf of the New Democratic party, take this opportunity to put our views before the committee with regard to some of the important

features of the legislation that the government has brought before the house in connection with the national economic development board. During the course of the debate members in all parties-I think some of them for the first time-have seen and acknowledged the necessity for the government of Canada to plan for Canada's future. I think some of the hon. members who spoke were late comers to this point of view, but we in this party are pleased that hon. members representing all parties in the house have spoken in support of the idea that Canada should plan her economic affairs and should plan ahead for her economic future.
All over the world countries have adopted the idea of social and economic planning. They are taking steps in the Scandinavian countries and in the countries of western Europe to plan their national economies to make sure that prosperity and full employment will come to their people in the days that lie ahead. Some of these countries have already achieved prosperity and full employment for their people but in Canada, due to the failure of the present government and its Liberal predecessor to meet the necessity for planning, Canada is declining. Other countries are flourishing while we are stagnating.
We in this party believe we have to take steps to adopt genuine social and economic planning. We have already expressed support for the legislation to establish a national economic development board, but at the same time we have advised the house of our misgivings regarding the form this legislation takes at the present time. We hope something can be done about that as we proceed to consider this legislation clause by clause, for we must adopt the idea of genuine social and economic planning. We must be prepared to establish a genuine national economic development board if the promise of material prosperity and spiritual fulfilment, which the twentieth century holds out for Canada, is to be realized.
I shall deal with one important aspect of planning that ought to be considered by the national economic development board, by the house and by informed public opinion. That is the idea of planning for the consumer, because when we talk about social and economic planning what we want to achieve is not necessarily the maximization of profit, not necessarily more and more production, but to provide for the consumer the goods and services he wants and needs.
Does the consumer today, under the economic arrangements we have, get the goods and services that he wants and needs? The consumer, the ordinary citizen-and all of us are consumers-is exhorted on all sides to consume at all costs. This is his sacred duty
National Economic Development Board to the free enterprise system. He is exhorted to consume all kinds of appliances and all kinds of commodities, but the question this committee ought to be asking itself is, does the consumer get what he wants and what he needs? I do not believe, and I do not think hon. members in the Social Credit party and at least some hon. members in the Conservative and Liberal parties believe, that our industrial machine is producing what people want and what people need. All of us are acquainted with the book that was written by J. K. Galbraith, "The Affluent Society". It is necessary to refer to only one of the examples he gave of the dilemma that faces the United States, and likewise Canada-the dilemma of public squalor in the midst of private affluence. He of course pointed out what should have been obvious to us, what should have been obvious to any administration that was planning the social and economic future of the country, in either the United States or Canada.
I think the most disconcerting thing that was revealed by J. K. Galbraith in his book was the fact that here on this continent we spend more on advertising than we do on education. Of course this leads to the question, what is more important, stimulating artificial demand for goods and services that the consumer may not want, that the consumer may not need, that the consumer may not have the money with which to buy, which may lead to his financial ruination if he tries to obtain them, or to provide that every citizen, every Canadian young and old should have the right to education whether it be technical, academic or vocational; the right to whatever education he can benefit from.
Even in terms of industrial development, even in terms of the necessity for expanding the gross national product, even in terms of the requirement of increased economic growth, it is essential that as we move forward into the age of technology, the age when scientific qualifications in many, many fields will be more than ever necessary; as we move forward into the time when our young people will have to be trained in all kinds of fields and will have to utilize all kinds of techniques that today we barely realize the necessity for, that we devote much greater expenditures to education than we are doing at the present time.
I was talking about the fact that the consumer must be given a place in the kind of planning that we have to adopt in Canada. We talk about the necessity for the consumer to have freedom of choice, and the members of the New Democratic party believe that the consumer ought to have freedom of choice. Economists today talk about the idea of economic sovereignty. Some of them say that
3164	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board under our present arrangements the consumer has the right to choose whatever commodity he wishes to buy, and we do not wish to take that right away from him.
We believe that right is essential. We believe the consumer ought to have freedom of choice. But does he really have freedom of choice today in Canada? How can the consumer be said to have freedom of choice in an age of administered prices, when the prices he pays and the prices he is charged are not competitive; when these prices are administered by the people who control the large corporations in the key industries?
Last April we had as good an example of the fact that administered prices exist on this continent as we will ever have, when the leading steel corporations of the United States -by sheer coincidence-simultaneously raised the price of steel by $6 a ton. Of course this meant that the price of every commodity of which steel was a component would necessarily be increased by at least an equivalent amount. President Kennedy recognized the necessity for the government to intervene in the interests of the consuming public, and he did intervene and persuaded the steel companies to cancel the increase they had made. I think that is one of the best examples we can have of the necessity for planning for the benefit of the consumer, because that is what we are trying to achieve. We want to plan for the maximization of the choices that confront the consumer. We want to plan to make sure that he has genuine freedom of choice.
We in this party have advocated, on behalf of the consumer, that we ought to establish in this country a ministry of consumers' affairs. We have advocated the idea that in the cabinet there should be a minister representing the consumer, looking after consumers' affairs. We believe that such a minister ought to be a member of a federal planning board. We believe that the national economic development board should be responsible directly to the cabinet, not simply to the Minister of Finance. We believe that the Minister of Finance should be a member of that board, should be its chairman. And we believe that there should be a minister in the cabinet sitting on the national economic development board to represent the consumers of this country.
When we are talking about the necessity for planning for the consumer we have to consider how we can make sure the consumer has sufficient income to enable him to freely choose those commodities that he wants and needs. Of course we in the New Democratic party have advocated time and time again from this section of the house the necessity in Canada today for stimulating consumer


demand, for a planned increase in the supply of the money and credit, not an indiscriminate increase such as was advocated by the Social Credit party when it put before the house the idea of debt free money-an idea, incidentally, to which the Leader of the Opposition subscribed at that time. The Leader of the Opposition, in the debate on Friday, referred to the social and economic planning advocated by the New Democratic party as "magic nostrums"; yet the Leader of the Opposition advocated the idea of debt free money only a few months ago in this house, or at least his right bower in economic affairs, the hon. member for Davenport, advocated the idea of debt free money.
I suggest that it does not lie in the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition, who put forward that fantastically irresponsible idea, to denounce the members of any other party in this house as advocating "magic nostrums". I do not think the Leader of the Opposition had any clear idea of what debt free money involved, but at least his right bower in economic affairs should have known better.
We in the New Democratic party believe in the necessity for expanding Canada's social capital in order that additional money may be made available and spent. This may involve planned deficits; not the kind of financial chaos that this government has imposed upon the country, but planned deficits designed to enable municipalities, provincial governments and the federal government as well to increase the supply of social capital in this country, to increase the number of schools and hospitals, the number of community centres, to supply the country with the highways and bridges that it needs.
Mr. Chairman, we believe these things could be done, and in the process the number of jobs, the amount of money and consumer purchasing power would be increased, and the consumer would benefit because he would have the money to enable him to exercise genuine freedom of choice. We also need a countrywide minimum wage law to increase the incomes of consumers all over the country.
Let me point this out. Even if the federal government concerns itself with the necessity for taking all these steps to increase consumer demand, to give to the consumer sufficient income to enable him to buy the things he wants and needs, that will not suffice unless the planners, the federal government, concern themselves with the problem of interest rates. The necessity for regulating interest rates in this country should now be apparent to hon. members in all parties. It should now, I hope, be apparent even to the members of the cabinet. We already supervise the lending activities of the chartered banks; we already

regulate the interest charges which they make to the public. Surely it is time we got around to regulating the lending activities of finance companies, small loan companies, department stores and furniture stores. Surely it is time the federal government supervised the lending activities and regulated the rates of interest that are charged by these companies. It is necessary to cite only one or two statistics in order to justify the case for federal legislation to regulate interest charges in this country.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The hon. member is making it difficult for the Chair with respect to relevancy, especially as he speaks of other legislation which has nothing whatever to do with this bill. I have looked at clause 9 of the bill before us, and I know it lends itself to fairly wide scope for debate; but there are private members' bills having to do with the subject the hon. member is now considering. I think he will agree with me I have been tolerant as to relevancy up to this moment, but before he begins to quote examples which go into detail on a specialized subject I caution him that I would have difficulty in relating them to the bill under consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I speak on the point of order? I do not want to detract from the implications of the statement which Your Honour has just made. On the other hand I would not wish your observations to preclude a debate which I think is inevitable on this matter. It seems to me that on this bill we are entitled to discuss whatever subject matter we believe should come within the compass of a national economic development board. It is true that clause 9 is fairly general in its scope. Some of us might argue that it is not general enough. If one does not stand up at this time and make an observation of this kind one might be precluded later on from taking a position as to what should be the scope of this bill, and I strongly suggest that the whole economic life of the country is involved in this bill, at least to the extent that it is open to hon. members to suggest that the bill should encompass the total economic life of the nation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the bill was in the resolution stage it was described by the minister as having to do with economic planning for Canada. It is difficult to explain how we can discuss economic planning for Canada in isolation from such questions as instalment buying and the high interest rates which are related thereto, because they form part of the consumer problem which in itself is a most important part of the economic situation. I think it would be difficult to circumscribe a discussion of this type by ruling
National Economic Development Board out consideration of such matters as interest rates and instalment buying.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I rose as a precautionary measure having heard the hon. member say that he intended to proceed with this matter in some detail. If, for instance, we were to allow a discourse on examples of harsh interest rates and so on it could come to a point where, in my view, it would be outside the scope of this bilk I did not make any ruling, and the hon. member may proceed now.


Mr. Baldwin:: Perhaps I might make a brief comment on your observations, Mr. Chairman, because this is a matter which might come up later on. It is true that at the resolution stage and on second reading it is obviously difficult, when we are dealing with a bill of this nature, to curtail the scope of debate, but it is my submission that when we come to debate in committee there are rules which set a perimeter around the discussion, which must then have some limit. To that extent I submit that your caution was well deserved.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I appreciate the brief intervention you made in the debate, Mr. Chairman. Before my hon. friend the member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Essex East rose to speak on the point of order and to point out the relation between the regulation of consumer credit and economic planning on a countrywide scale, I was about to say that the amount of money which the people of this country owe to the finance companies, the small loans companies, the department stores and the furniture stores totals $2,450 million, while the amount they owe to the chartered banks totals $1,600 million. Thus the people of this country owe almost 50 per cent more money to these financial institutions, which now go unregulated, than they do to the chartered banks, which makes this problem a matter of great concern to economic planners and one which should be considered at an early stage by the members of the national economic development board when it is established.
Your Honour was somewhat disturbed lest I recite a series of examples of the imposition of harsh rates of interest upon members of the public. I did not intend to do that, but I agree with what, I think, was implied in Your Honour's remarks, namely that these examples are so numerous that if we once began to recite them members in all parts of the house would have hundreds of cases to lay before the minister. I am sure all hon. members are anxious that the minister and the national economic development board should consider this problem at the earliest possible time.

National Economic Development Board
There are some general features attached to the imposition of interest charges which ought, in my view, to come to the attention of the board at the earliest opportunity. These financial institutions that I have mentioned use a number of techniques to increase interest charges to those who make loans from them and to people who buy their goods far beyond any reasonable limit. There is the technique of not quoting the rate of interest, of simply telling a consumer that he is buying for so much down and $10 a month. There is the device of the added rate. A consumer is told he is paying, say, an interest charge of $6 on $100 over a period of one year, which sounds as if he were paying only 6 per cent. In fact, because he will have paid off at least half of the debt at the end of six months, he will be paying 12 per cent. There is the technique of the discount rate. A consumer receives $94 and then has to repay $100. This sounds like an interest rate of 6 per cent, but it is really 12 per cent. Then there is the simple monthly rate, which is what the department stores use in their revolving credit plans. The consumer pays 11 per cent a month, which is actually 18 per cent a year. A consumer may pay 3 per cent a month to a small loans company. That is 36 per cent a year. These are all aspects of the problem of excessive interest charges, and the national economic development board ought to consider the whole question as one of urgency.
We in this party believe there must be legislation to curb the exaction of excessive interest rates and to restrict interest charges to reasonable limits. We do not go so far as to advocate the idea of debt free money. I know this is one of the sacred policies of the Liberal party, one which they espoused with a good deal of vehemence last fall and one which the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Essex East expounded to the house with their usual eloquence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course the hon. member is wrong once again.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Nevertheless some of us were not persuaded that debt free money is a sound policy. We in this party believe we ought not to adopt policies such as debt free money, a policy which has been rejected by every reputable economist. We believe we should rely on policies which will commend themselves to people versed in economic affairs and who have some knowledge of sound economic and fiscal practices.
One of the policies which does commend itself to people who are knowledgeable in this field is a policy of regulating excessive interest charges and limiting interest charges

to reasonable levels. That is what this party believes in. We believe that this is a measure that the national economic development board ought to consider. This is a measure which justifies, in fact commands, legislation at the earliest possible moment by this government, or by any government which may succeed it. We believe that the consumer ought to be protected. We believe that legislation to regulate interest charges is one of the essential ways in which this protection can be afforded him. That is why, as the chairman of the committee quite rightly pointed out, some members have submitted bills to regulate interest charges. I myself, Mr. Chairman, have submitted such a bill.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude my remarks by saying that the earlier the ministry, the earlier that this house, and the earlier that the national economic development board give their attention to the problems of the consumer, the better. When we are planning our economic affairs we are seeking to provide for the consumer the goods and services which he wants and which he needs. When we talk of planning we are concerned about maintaining a level of income which will enable all Canadians to purchase the good things which ought to be available to every one of them. We can do this only if we are prepared to regulate not only the supply of consumer credit, but also interest charges. Otherwise, if we took steps to increase the level of consumer credit-


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Rodney Berger: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: Is it his intention to see that the consumers buy with borrowed money or with money they have?


Thomas Rodney Berger: I should like them to be able to buy with money which they had earned, with money they had earned in jobs which can be made available to them if we adopt the idea of genuine economic planning, as they do in so many other parts of the world. I believe that they ought to be able to borrow money if it becomes necessary for them to do so, but only at reasonable levels of interest. I suggest that it is a sad commentary on the kind of government which this party and that party have given us when we do not yet have on the statute books of the nation legislation regulating interest rates in the same way that the bills now before the house, and which will shortly be debated, call for.


Gilles Grégoire: Do you not think that we have enough debts in the country now? Let some people secure money without having to borrow.

National Economic Development Board


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has quite rightly pointed out, what we need is money which will buy something, money which will maintain its buying power. If hon. members do not yet realize this they should, but the policies advocated by the party of the hon. member who asked me the question are such that if we adopted the idea which they share with the Liberals, or debt free money, the result would be a galloping inflation in this country. If we accepted the magic nostrums put forward by the hon. member for Davenport, the savings of old age pensioners and the savings of other people on fixed incomes would be wiped out. There would not be any prosperity for anybody then. You must plan your economy. Increasing the money supply and increasing the supply of credit is only one of the economic tools which ought to be used when planning your economy.
Mr. Chairman, I was in the process of concluding my remarks when the hon. member was good enough to interrupt me and enable me to prolong them. Let me just finish by saying that we in this party are going to fight in this parliament for legislation to regulate interest charges. We believe that this is an essential policy, a policy that ought long ago to have been adopted by the government of this country. We intend to do our best to make sure that that policy is adopted in this parliament.
(Translation):


Mr. Sauve:: When the establishment of a national economic development board was announced in the speech from the throne, most hon. members, I am sure, were delighted at the action taken by the government in this field. I am afraid, however, that the government foreshadowed in the speech from the throne much more than it is actually introducing in the house.
I remember that in the speeches delivered during the throne speech debate, government members told us that the government was finally bringing before the house a revolutionary bill, a measure of utmost importance.
Now, I find that this bill was read for the first time on November 28 and that today is January 28. Therefore, more than two months have elapsed since this bill was introduced and I am not aware that it is members of the opposition who have delayed the passage of this bill.
I believe, on the contrary, that in the case of this bill as well as that of the other measures it has introduced, the government has always postponed the debate on the grounds that it had to deal with more urgent matters that came up unexpectedly.
Thus it is that, in a few days, we shall be called upon to vote interim supply, eleven twelfths. To my knowledge, it shall be the first time in the history of this house since confederation that such a measure is put forward.
Newspapers are devoting a lot of space to the difficulties now facing the government. Having had to delay until now its requests for funds, it has been wondering how to get out of this fix.
I note also that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) has been content to put forward only the introductory resolution of this bill and, as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) observed a while ago, he has not even made any comment since. In fact, it was the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Martineau) who introduced the bill in this house.
I find it strange that, for a measure as important as this one which is considered essential to the recovery of our country's economy, the government should have waited until today to resume the discussion.
I find it even more strange that the responsible minister was not always present in this chamber while the measure was being discussed.
We have now reached the committee stage and I intend to make a few remarks on the nature of the bill.
The presentation of this bill concerning a national economic development board seems to conflict with two other bodies created by the government: the national productivity council and the Atlantic development board.
I do not understand very well what the government had in mind when it set up those regional or special boards that do not seem to report to a higher body, like the one it proposes to set up now.


Gilles Grégoire: It is because they do not know what to do.


Maurice Sauvé: I wonder, in fact, as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) has said, if the government is not simply looking for measures that might yield political advantages, giving no real thought to the most important problem, the economic development of our country.
When I read this bill, Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to find that its scope is so limited. One would get the impression, on reading it carefully, that the government, in order to satisfy public opinion which demands measures of this kind, has decided to introduce a bill without giving it any real substance.
3168	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board
In this bill there is a frequent reference to consultations, to the possibility of members of the board to present briefs, suggestions, to waiting for directions from the Minister of Finance, but it seems prevented from taking any initiative.
I really wonder what will come out of this bill. I am happy, however, that it was introduced because at least it is an indication that we are on the way of what is commonly known as "indicative planning".
I intend this afternoon to dwell a little longer on this indicative planning. I am pleased to see that the government has decided to apply at least part of the electoral platform of the Liberal party in the last general election. Indeed, I read at page 14 that the Liberal party of Canada proposed the setting up of an economic council.
And the government picked up the idea.


An hon. Member:: Twenty two years too late.
Another hon. Member: Why did you not do
it in your time?


Maurice Sauvé: We are in the opposition, not in power. At the time when we were in power, we maintained economic activity at a high level. It is only since the Conservative party came to power that the economic situation has deteriorated in this country.
At all events, the Canadian people passed judgment at the 1957 election and we do not have to discuss it. But we are certain, as all Gallup polls indicate, that come the next election, that is in a few weeks, and the Liberal party will come back to power; and I understand quite well why our friends to my left hesitate so much to help us to overthrow this government. The Social Credit members are ashamed because they know very well that last June they were elected to oppose the Conservative government, but they supported it since they have come to sit in this house. So, they are afraid to face their electors because they will be sent back home.


Mr. Pigeon:: You had to take shelter on the Magdalen islands.


Maurice Sauvé: It is a wonderful riding and the hon. member might like to get elected there, but it is a sure thing that he could not do it at the next general election.
I was discussing indicative planning, Mr. Chairman. What interests me in indicative planning is the goal that is usually pursued. As you are aware, the French government at the end of the war developed the


Monnet plan. And in 1958, a French author named Pierre Bauchet wrote a very interesting book, entitled; "The French experiment in planning". I would like to quote two lines from that book to show you what, to my mind, is the main objective of planning.
On page 21 of the book I just mentioned, it says:
A concern for full employment Is, indeed, one of the essential motives for planning.
Now, I am surprised that in this bill there should be no section aimed at full employment, because the unemployment situation is alarming in Canada at this time.
May I refer to the latest report of the dominion bureau of statistics on the labour situation since 1962, where it is said that on December 15 there were 414,000 people without jobs.
Now, government members may declare loudly that our economy has improved in 1962, but the fact remains that 414,000 Canadians were without jobs. The figure is excessive. In fact, it means 6.3 per cent of the labour force. Now, 6.3 per cent of the labour force means the highest unemployment rate among the NATO countries.
I shall now quote from a document which was published in September 1962, under the title:
(Text):
"Report of President's committee to appraise employment and unemployment statistics, U.S. government printing office."
(Translation):
Figures are given, on page 235, concerning the unemployment situation in 1960, and it can be seen that the figures for December 1962 do not differ very much from those given for Canada in 1960.
In the United States, unemployment represented 5.6 per cent of labour; in France, 1.9 per cent; in Western Germany, 1 per cent; in the United Kingdom, 2.4 per cent; in Italy, 4.3 per cent; in Sweden, 1.5 per cent and in Canada, 7 per cent in 1960 and 6.3 per cent in December 1962.
The level of unemployment is still high in Canada. But, and this is more serious, unemployment is not of the same extent throughout all areas of this country.
I believe that is one of the causes of uneasiness that is felt in many areas of the country.
To support my contention, I should like to put forward a few figures. For December, in the whole of Canada, the figure was 6.3 per cent.

National Economic Development Board
If we look at the statistics for the different provinces or areas, we see that unemployment affects 11.6 per cent of the labour force in the four Atlantic provinces; 8.4 per cent in the province of Quebec; 3.9 per cent in Ontario; 4.5 per cent in the prairies; 7.7 per cent in British Columbia.
There is therefore undue unemployment throughout the country, but it is more acute in certain areas and very acute in the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: With a Liberal government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member allow me a question? The hon. member is talking about unemployment in the province of Quebec. Is he not of the opinion that the provincial government has certain responsibilities in that field?


Maurice Sauvé: I shall come back to this aspect of the situation in a moment when I deal with the co-operation that is necessary between the federal and provincial governments.
I was speaking of unemployment and I believe that it is extremely revealing to consider at the same time the personal income per capita. Here we notice differences that are still more substantial. On page 38 of the last report released by the dominion bureau of statistics and entitled "National account, income and expenditure, 1961", we find figures for the personal income, per capita, in 1961.
If I mention these differences as between the various areas, it is because I shall later on insist on the importance of regional planning in a national economic development board with indicative planning. In Ontario- and this will certainly interest my hon. friends from the opposition sitting on my left-in 1961, the personal income per capita was $1,829; in British Columbia, $1,809; in Alberta, $1,582; in Manitoba, $1,476; in Quebec, $1,332; in Nova Scotia, $1,191; in Saskatchewan, $1,184; in New Brunswick, $1,054; in Prince Edward Island, $952; and in Newfoundland, $904.
Now, I notice that there is a difference of $497, or 37 per cent, in the personal income per capita between Quebec and Ontario.
Thus, I do not wonder why discussions are going on in the province of Quebec whereby people are questioning our whole participation within confederation. When we realize that our people are in an inferior position as regards unemployment, personal income, civil service, big companies-privately owned and crown corporations-we wonder whether
the economic situation is not mainly responsible for this attitude taken by the population of Quebec on its relations with the rest of Canada. That is why I believe that a national economic development board, at the federal level, is very important as long as it is well directed or organized, and has definite purposes. We cannot be satisfied with a body which will only collect statistics or wait until the minister directs it to make certain inquiries.
On the contrary, we must have a body bent on co-operating with the economic councils in the provinces, a body which will be concerned with regional development and production, which will envisage a full employment policy, the goal of indicative planning, as I mentioned earlier.
Indicative planning is easy to establish. We might very well provide for this in the bill, and I am certain that the whole Canadian people would welcome it. We should set up a working committee which would consult the various groups interested in production, the various professional groups which would submit reports pointing out to the Canadian government the objectives we are able to reach. For instance, there is in France a research body called the Monnet plan, which is composed of 90 people at the most. Those 90 people consult nearly 4,000 leaders of organizations, economists, labour union leaders, representatives of management and farmers' unions before suggesting the objectives to be reached within a certain period. When everybody is in agreement with regard to those objectives, the plan is submitted to the French parliament and means of reaching the proposed objectives are suggested. If it is impossible to so so by agreement among the interested people, no intervention on the part of the government could force them to reach those objectives.
There is also in France what is called government incentives, as we have them in Canada, but without any planning. For instance, for quite a long time the government has been subsidizing the gold mines, the transport of coal, and the transport of wheat from west to east. Grants are handed out without any co-ordinating policy. The government might very well resort to fiscal and other incentives and give priority to certain industrial areas.
To my mind, we could use such indicative planning in this country. For instance, I see no reason why we might not all agree on the objectives to be attained. I am convinced that
3170	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board all members in this house will admit that there is no valid reason for such a high unemployment rate in this country.
If we want to fight unemployment, we must agree on the means to do so effectively. As I pointed out a few moments ago by quoting some figures, unemployment is not the same throughout Canada. We might therefore try to favour some areas or some industries, so as to enable them to increase their production, in order to check unemployment in those districts. We have to promote full employment by all means, as well as co-operation between the various provinces and the federal government in the field of public investment. Every year the federal government as well as the provincial and municipal governments spend considerable amounts while there is no co-ordination between the various levels of government in investment matters.
Governments often act simultaneously on the labour or material markets, thus creating a temporary artificial scarcity. The federal government, the provincial governments and the municipalities do their borrowing without getting together to co-ordinate their borrowing policy.
It should be possible, within the proposed board, to plan government expenses in the field of capital expenditures, to organize planned government borrowing at federal and provincial levels.
This bill is based on the assumption that what is good for private enterprise or for individuals, is good for the community as a whole.
That is the famous saying which a former president of General Motors used when he said a few years ago:
(Text):
What is good for General Motors is good for the United States.
(Translation):
Now, that is a philosophy with which I totally disagree. The common good is not an aggregate of what is good for particular groups. We could all be very happy on our street and keep our door-step clean, but that does not mean that the sidewalk will be in the same condition throughout, that the garbage placed outside our door will not bother our neighbours.
I have always been amazed to find that the intervention of the government in certain fields has been accepted without discussion, and most particularly in postal matters, health, transport, communications, radio,
IMr. Sauve.]

television and highways, and when it is a matter of national economic growth, instead of taking steps to fight unemployment or to develop certain underdeveloped areas, the government should retire behind the screen of "laissez-faire".
However, during the last war means were found to co-ordinate the efforts of the nation as a whole, in order to achieve a specific objective: victory. I am still wondering why, in peacetime, means can not be found to reach the very specific objective of full employment.
Of course, a bill like the one now under consideration is a beginning, a starting point. In fact, we are now on the way to an indicative planning policy, which is very well explained in the excellent paper issued by the national productivity council, entitled "Report of the European Mission". This booklet makes extremely interesting reading, and I wonder why the government has not drawn on that report to draft its own bill. It seems very well established that the members of that mission came back from Europe impressed by the indicative planning program in operation in the European countries they visited. Here is what we find in paragraph 24 of the said report:
All countries visited admit the necessity of planning, under one form or another. Most countries make use of "indicative planning" as one of the measures most likely to ensure economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that when we come to the consideration of the various sections the bill could be amended, so that when parliament has adopted it we may all rejoice, both members of the government and those of the opposition, at the very extremely important move which will finally ensure this country a policy of full employment, a decrease in unemployment and better relations between all Canadians, which we all desire and hope one day will be achieved.
(Text):


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, that is a very important bill because in my opinion it very definitely affects the life of the communities which I represent. However, in reading it I am surprised to find it only goes to the extent of providing a board which will collect information and make it available to the minister. If there is going to be any advantage from national economic development, what we need is a board that will be able to advise the government and provide it with the knowledge requisite for the formulation

National Economic Development Board
of a policy that the government can implement for the areas that are selected, either by the government or the board, for specific attention.
This idea has been adopted by governments all over the world. I have been very impressed, speaking to people like George Cadbury who has been attached to the United Nations, to find that the United Nations has sent officials to places like Ceylon, Jamaica and other newly developing countries to establish councils to advise their governments of the potential wealth of their countries and how to get the most out of national economic development.
We in Canada are faced with many major problems, and I do not make any bones about the fact that I do not expect the government, through this bill, will solve those problems. However I hope and believe they can be solved. I have no more faith in this government than I had in the Liberal regime which, it must be said, had a bureaucracy established that would have been able to undertake this type of work without such a board, if it so desired. Now, with a government that cannot run its own affairs, that finds us on a Monday, only a few weeks from the end of the financial year, without the supply motions necessary to allow us to discuss the business of the house in an orderly fashion, I cannot expect such a government to be able to take the advice of this board and put it into effect in order to establish economic equality across Canada.
The government has so little faith in this type of thing that it has brought forward a bill to apply to the Atlantic provinces. Why does it do this? To some extent, like the government, we are representative of the provinces and the provincial governments. The former speaker mentioned that in the province of Quebec this has been a great problem and that there were problems of a national nature in Quebec that were going to be aided by this particular bill. This is true of all the provinces, and it may be the reason for the introduction of the bill providing for an Atlantic development board, with stronger provisions than this bill. It may be that the provinces, the provincial governments and people generally throughout Canada are not yet ready to provide the government with the machinery that would establish an economic development council to provide full employment for all the people. It may be that they are not ready to support a bill which would provide the machinery necessary to make the most use of the wealth we have and achieve reasonable economic development in all parts of the country, using the wealth of the country.
We are particularly concerned with this in my area. We have built numerous communities on the strength of the basic resources of this nation. Many of our towns are only celebrating their semi-centennial this year. Many of them were very progressive in their day. One has only to drive through the town of Cobalt to know this. The people there talk of the days when there were electric railways running throughout the silver area, from Cobalt to Haileybury and New Liskeard, and from Cobalt into the Kerr lake camp. All these towns were further developed 40 years ago than they are today. It seems to me a shame that the people of those communities should find themselves going backward instead of forward, with their only hope lying in this type of development.
It seems to me the time has now arrived when we should not any longer be taking people to industry, like we still are in many of our larger cities, but that we should take industry to the people and to the communities that have already been developed. I am not suggesting this is the only thing we should be doing, but it is one of the first things we ought to do.
Why was it necessary in countries like Sweden, France, and most of the major countries of Europe? I would suggest it has been necessary because the free enterprise system works only on the principle of building up profits rather than on the establishment of economic welfare for the people as a whole. I think this has been recognized by many countries throughout the civilized world, and it is now being recognized in a small, token way by the government of Canada and the people of Canada.
It is surprising what favourable steps governments will sometimes take, but eventually they do take these steps. It is also surprising that these steps should be taken by a Conservative government, when one considers the fact that the Liberal party suggested they are to the left of the present government. I was surprised to read in Saturday's newspaper that in the province of British Columbia a Conservative government was suggesting a medicare program for the province.


An hon. Member:: A Conservative government?


William Arnold Peters: The Conservative party. The Conservative government that is in power there has not got around to implementing such a program but I suggest this is only a matter of time; it also will make the same suggestion before the next provincial election.
One of the major things with which we should be concerned, apart from relocating industry, is the development of an economy
3172	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board for Canadians by Canadians. Many times I have been shocked by the control exercised by countries not under our jurisdiction but working within our boundaries. Not only is this work done by corporations of other countries but even sometimes governments of other countries.
I believe we are going to be advised in the next few months that we will be regulated to some extent in our economic development by what happens south of the border in relation to agricultural products. It has been suggested that if the United States, through legislation in that country, decides to scrap the present support program in regard to wheat, one of Canada's major developments will be in jeopardy, and rather than producing $2 wheat they will be producing $1 wheat. I wonder where our average of $1.50 will go if this happens. There is very little we can do about it in the present circumstances, and it seems to me that if a national economic development board is going to meet the needs of the Canadian people we must be in a position to do something about it.
On many occasions we have heard from and met with representatives from the automobile industry in this country. This seems to me to be a wonderful opportunity for the hon. member for Essex East to rise in his place and demand Canadian government assistance for an industry which should be Canadian. It is well recognized that it is rather foolish to buy cars that are manufactured for desert conditions and for conditions very unlike those in northern Canada; it is foolish to pay money for a product that is not meeting our needs. It is in the interests of the Canadian government to give some assistance to developing a product that will meet the needs of Canadians, and will meet them by the establishment of an industry that will produce something that is good for Canadians.
We must always be shocked-certainly I am always shocked-to hear that because of legislation or regulations passed in another country we are stymied in our economic development in this country because of our limited ability to sell the product which we manufacture. I refer to the Ford situation where Canadian firms were not able to sell to one country because it was considered not to be in the interests of another country.


Mr. Pugh:: Would the hon. member accept a question?


William Arnold Peters: Sure.


David Vaughan Pugh: Sell in what other country?


William Arnold Peters: Pardon?
[Mr. Peters.)


David Vaughan Pugh: The hon. member mentioned Ford cars. Sell in what other country? What is the name of the country?


William Arnold Peters: They were trucks to be sold to red China.


David Vaughan Pugh: Thank you.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, that is a very, very interesting question. The hon. gentleman, I presume, comes from western Canada, and he does not rise in his place and say-


An hon. Member:: He comes from the west coast.


William Arnold Peters: Well, that is western Canada even if it is on the west coast. He does not rise in his place and object to wheat being sold to red China, but he objects to trucks being sold to them. At least, that is the implication in his question.


David Vaughan Pugh: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I raised no objection whatsoever. It was the hon. member's party that raised the objection to selling wheat to China, I thought; he certainly has no objection to selling cars to China. I certainly have not myself.


William Arnold Peters: We in this party I am sure have no objection to Canada selling anything of a non-military nature to any country in the world which has the money to buy it or trade that can be used as barter for that product. We are a country that has to develop and we need to do so in an industrial sense. We can, it is true, increase our production tremendously in an agriculture sense, but at the present time we are not able to sell our present agricultural production. Industrially this country has a lower wage scale than many other countries throughout the world, and I believe we are in an advantageous position to go into the production of many, many other things. But I suggest that the economic development council would have to inform the government that assistance was necessary if this were to happen. We decided to sell food to Cuba, and we received a great deal of condemnation from several parts of the world for doing so. I believe that if the Cuban people wish to eat-and I think they do-and there is a product we can sell to them and they have one which they can sell to us, then we should do that and we should not care whether it suits the needs of someone else's economic blockade because they lost one of their little corporations.
I believe this is something Canadians have to do. That is why I am so shocked every time I hear a Liberal spokesman rise in this house and defend the right of another country to have some control over our corporations.

I think the Ford example is a good one to think about, because we have all met delegations from the automobile industry which have informed us that a great many of the employees of their industry are unemployed because no expansion is taking place in the automobile industry in Canada, and yet more cars are being sold in Canada every year. I think this is one of the things to which Canadians should give consideration. I believe that this domination of capital from other countries may make it necessary for the federal government to get into the field of supplying capital to industry in those areas that need it.
I have always been very pleased and very proud of the fact that the maritimes, an area which I agree needs development as badly as any other area in Canada, have on their own, without government assistance initially, developed the idea of industrial estates. I am pleased that the federal government, through the Atlantic economic council bill, gave some assistance to the idea of establishing industrial estates in the provinces of the maritimes. I suggest that this right should be given to the rest of Canada. If the rest of Canada is not ready for it, then let the federal government give leadership in developing plans so that the people will know the advantages of this type of development and will assist in bringing it about.
We in northern Ontario have always depended upon our natural resources as the main source of our income. There have been several examples where these resources have not been utilized for the benefit of Canadians. Right now silver that is being produced in my area in very large quantities is being shipped to the United States for manufacturing and refining to the extent where it can be used by the Canadian mint. Then what happens? The Canadian government go to the United States and buy that silver back because we have not the guts and the gumption to put $500,000 into the refinery that we already have in Cobalt. This plant can produce the mint silver that is required by the Canadian government and the Canadian government would save $2 per ounce if we were to do that. It seems to me that we have a terrific love for a foreign country if we are prepared to pay them an extra two bucks for the silver we carry around in our own pockets. This government has not the ability to decide that this Canadian industry is worth saving and do something about it.
We are going to be asked in the near future to assist this refinery. When the refinery at Deloro closed its doors United States interests offered to smelt the silver that we were not capable of handling. We are now capable of handling it. We have this plant-
National Economic Development Board it was operating under very odd auspices until recently-and it is worth the federal government investing some money in it to see that it operates in Canada for the benefit of Canadians. The silver industry is no small industry. This can be readily ascertained if we bother to find out the quantity of silver that is being bought at the present time from the United States. I do not blame the entrepreneurs in the United States for dealing with Canada in the way they have, but I do blame Canadians for allowing this or making it necessary. We have near Kirkland Lake an area which is a good example in this connection. The town of Kirkland Lake itself is dying quite rapidly. Every year another mine closes down. Miners are being laid off and no industry is being developed in the area so that this particular area can continue its economic growth in co-operation with other areas throughout Canada. Yet we found last year that a United States corporation was willing to come into the Kirkland Lake area, establish the Adams mine and start a mining development on which they expect to spend $30 million or $40 million in the next two years. I thank them for doing something which Canadians themselves were unwilling to do, and in some cases incapable of doing. I think there is a terrific waste of our natural resources in allowing this to be done.
I know we are not yet developed to the point at which we can use the total production of this large and worth-while mining operation but I think we are in a position where we could put in a smelter and develop a degree of manufacturing of iron and steel in that area so as to make it a booming area again. It seems to me that this iron industry will eventually employ people in secondary industries connected with it to the number of 4,000 or more, yet we in Canada will only have 300 or 400 employees. Again, we are to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for Americans who have more foresight than we have ourselves. If this government wants to develop a worth-while enterprise, an iron and steel industry in northern Ontario would be a venture well worth considering and, since it is already in the embryo stage, it would not cost too much money to carry out.
The idea of relocation of industry has been adopted by almost every major, economically developed country in the world, countries which have a high standard of living as hon. members may check for themselves. These countries have decided that they cannot afford to enjoy the luxury of unemployment such as this country still thinks it can afford, but cannot. I think one of our major advances in this country must concern the development and diversification of our industry, and the
3174	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board diversification of industry must inevitably lend itself to government planning. Why should industry go into towns and cities in metropolitan areas where more is asked for a small business site than would be asked for a whole city block in less congested areas, which are already developed, with water, sewers and electricity laid on; areas where the municipalities would provide the land almost free of cost because they are anxious to have industry and willing to help to the extent a small municipality can? What assistance do such municipalities get from the federal government?
The Minister of Finance is interested in this bill and rightly so. He has shown an interest in other acts for the development of Canada. But I wonder if he has given real consideration to the relationship between this bill and the Industrial Development Bank Act. There are a number of small industries in my own area which have gone to the industrial development bank for loans only to find that no money is available. Eventually they got the chartered banks to lend money with respect to enterprises which the industrial development bank had declined to accept as security. For example, ten or 12 farmers were running a co-operative dairy. A second dairy was going bankrupt and they went to the I.D.B. to ask for a loan. They have a large modem building with a great deal of equipment and by adding the second dairy they would almost double the amount of equipment available. They were not acquiring the other dairy merely in order to expand but, as I say, because the other dairy was going bankrupt and the farmers would be left holding the bag if someone did not bail this concern out of its difficulty. The I.D.B. told these farmers that the building was not worth more than the mortgage they held on it. They were told that their farms and their collective value as citizens did not mean anything at all. The bank wanted to see everything in black and white. They wanted to be able to seize the building and recover the value of the loan if anything went wrong, ignoring the fact that it would be a dairy with farmers depending on it. Money could be lent only on the building itself. I believe the collective value of our citizens is important. I believe the collective value of our farm economy is important. In addition, I believe the value of our unemployed should never be forgotten. These are all matters which should be taken into consideration. The other day I was approached by a young man who had bought a dry cleaning establishment. He told me that money was not available to consolidate his mortgages. These mortgages were considered good enough to be collateral for the building and for the equipment he had bought. Yet


when he went to the I.D.B. and asked for consolidation of his debts it was no dice; the building was not worth enough, and that was the only thing they could lend money on. What kind of a development are we going to have if this is the way things are carried on? Suppose we ask for money to develop a mining venture and the only thing the company has are buildings above the ground? Is the I.D.B. prepared to help an industry of this kind? I doubt it. Unless we revise the bill before us it will not serve industry in any way whatsoever.
The minister does not need further statistics to be collected. We already have statistics available. What he needs, as we see it, is a national economic development council which will tell him where we can get the most in the development of Canada out of specific expenditures in a particular field at a particular time. The government must then decide to do something about it. It is not good enough simply to advise the Minister of Finance, because the Minister of Finance is in a difficult position always. He finds that when everything else is paid there is nothing left over, the same as you and I do at the end of the year. If we are to undertake our economic development on the basis of whether the Minister of Finance says it is economically feasible or not we shall find we shall never develop anything in this country because there will never be any money left over. Hon. members can ask the char staff and the messenger service what happens when it comes to getting down to the bottom where the money is needed the most. The areas where development is really needed will be neglected in favour of the larger centres. They will find there is no money available for them, just as the char staff and the messengers have found. There can be no doubt as to the necessity of guiding the relocation of industry. Areas such as metropolitan Toronto and London, Ontario, are already facing problems of access and transportation which were unheard of 30 or 40 years ago. Problems such as these could readily be solved by industrial planning but the remedies which are most appropriate cannot even be considered under the terms of the bill which is now before us.
There are occasions, it would seem, when industrial plants are switched to other areas without even economic reasons being given for the move. There was a small plant in a town in my own' area which moved to another town not very much larger. I asked why it had moved and was told that the president's wife did not like the society she found in the first town. That was the reason why the concern moved. It is surprising that a free

enterprise system can be so arranged that even economic considerations need not be taken into account, but that an action so important to employees and others can be taken merely on the whim of particular persons. Another company left the town where I live and established itself in the city of North Bay. The head office is there and the company has between 60 and 70 employees -not many, but still the departure of the company was a considerable loss. The reason given for the move was that the comptroller lived in Montreal and found it easier to go to North Bay than to New Liskeard. By its very nature the free enterprise system works severe hardship on people, and though this is usually done under the guise of economic interest it seems to me sometimes even this motive is badly bent.
The federal government can give important assistance to the development of this country. Much of the knowledge needed has already been obtained. We do not necessarily have to go to Europe to find out what has been done in the various countries there, though I think this would help. Also, I believe, it has been done on many occasions. I know that when a man engaged in the lumber industry in my area wanted to find out how he could get the most out of his factory for a dollar-and he was engaged in an industry where the efficiency was very low-he went to Sweden and asked them what they did. When he came back to Canada I do not think he applied the Swedish system. I think he used the education which he had to adapt it to the Canadian way of life, and he now has a flourishing industry which uses many years of experience gained some place else to adapt itself to the Canadian system.
I think that we have to apply this method not only to the field of industry but also to the field of transportation. The economic development of this country will be retarded for many years to come if we do not face and come to grips with a national transportation policy. In my own area transportation is always cited as the only reason why secondary industry cannot come into northern Ontario. People say that this means the transporting of raw materials into the area and taking out of it the finished product. Yet I have sat on negotiations with a large factory in New Liskeard, the Hill, Clark and Francis factory, which also owns Hallidays and has an interest in many other woodworking concerns across the nation. Yet this company manufactures doors and windows for Simpson's, Eaton's, for Hallidays, and for many other companies, and will ship the doors and windows from New Liskeard to Toronto, Hamilton and other areas. These other companies in turn send them back to New
National Economic Development Board Liskeard, pay transportation both ways, and yet sell their products for two or three dollars less than they can buy them in the first place from the factory. This is not a transportation cost. It has nothing whatsoever to do with transportation. This is just another bugaboo used by industry often reluctant to look at the needs of the people and finding this as another reason to give for centralization of industry, in spite of the many problems which centralization has had.
We do not want to be unfair to the urban centres of Canada. We are happy that they have developed as they have. But the representatives from these areas will agree that some of the problems they now face in their urban development, or in the renewal of their urban development, will be at the expense of all Canada. And we are going to be happy in developing them. But in return for that, I believe they have an obligation to help those not capable of helping themselves at the present time. It is not possible for the people in my area to help themselves, because the money in the hands of any small entrepreneur who would do the developing is not sufficient for the type of industry which will be self-reliant and will be carried in the northern areas. It is true that there will be some small industry, but what we need is fairly large industry to solve the problems which we have. I ask this not only for my area; I ask it also for the thousands and thousands of small towns and communities across Canada. For example, I think of those towns in western Canada which even now find their only claim to fame is a rural elevator. And the signpost on which they have their name, indicating that they are a rural station, is not disappearing. Why can we not provide those small communities with industry to maintain them and to see them grow rather than disappear? We should be proud of the heritage our forefathers in the west and in the outside areas of rural Canada left to us, and rather than destroy it we should try to build it up.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Laing:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on this bill. I note with some satisfaction that it is taken in the name of the Minister of Finance. I want to say at once that as far as I am concerned, and I think as far as most of the people on this side are concerned, I am of the opinion that it could not be better taken, both from the viewpoint of the minister's goodwill in doing something worth while for the country, and probably also from the viewpoint of his ability to do so. But I am going

National Economic Development Board to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the bill as written certainly does not warrant the hyperbole of praise given it by the minister when he spoke at the introduction stage. No doubt it will be subjected to some amendments, which I hope the minister will receive, in order to give it the ability to produce something for the Canadian people. Because as the bill stands, this is nothing more than the setting up of a permanent advisory board to the government. It says that.
The question I want to put to the minister is this. Does he not have at the present time in the various departments of the government that type of advice and information constantly at hand? We are in favour of planning, because we have seen in other nations of the world the results of planning since the end of the war. While we note with tremendous interest the great progress which has been made in those countries, such as the European countries and in Japan, I am rather of the opinion that most of it has been the result of invention being forced out of necessity. They were in grave difficulties and have now come back at a tremendous rate.
Our situation in Canada is not like the situations of those countries. To apply the principle of planning in this country on the basis they have applied it in western Europe and in Japan would, I think, be a most difficult matter indeed. I think the minister is aware of that. But certainly the bill as it stands will give him nothing more than a group of advisers, and I think that there are already a great number of advisers in various departments who can supply all this information.
I am going to make special reference to the particular situation in which Canada finds itself in respect to world trade. I noticed with some interest that a portion of the bill had some meat in it. I refer to the duties and the powers for which it provides. I want to tell the minister that far too much of the bill is given over to the provision of the people who will be on the board. Also I notice that only the chairman is to be paid, and that is the intention. However, the duties and powers are very interesting. Clause 9 of the bill says:
It shall be the duty of the board to furnish to the minister all such advice and information as will best assist the government of Canada in furthering a high and sustainable rate of economic growth in Canada, the strengthening of Canada's international financial and trade positionand this interests me very much-
-and the achievement of the highest possible levels of efficient productionand so on.


Rémi Paul: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in

order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, page 24, namely notices of motion.
(Translation):



NATIONAL HEALTH


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide assistance to epileptics:
1.	by requiring the federal civil service and industry at large to hire a fixed percentage of employable epileptics, as is done in the United Kingdom and elsewhere;
2.	by promoting with the provinces admission of epileptic children in regular schools on the same basis as any other children;
3.	by increasing the research work on epilepsy, and by contributing with the provinces to the erection of treatment centres (Foyer Dieppe) for male and female sick persons;
4.	by improving the conditions under which epileptics live, through a more active public campaign.
He said: Mr. Speaker, two years ago, when the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare were under consideration, I had the opportunity to submit to the house the very special problem of epileptics. Last year, I had put on the order paper a notice of motion, but the early dissolution of parliament did not allow us to consider it. Tonight I am very happy to submit to this house this question which I feel is most important and I do hope that I shall be able to go over the subject rather briefly so as to allow members of the other parties to state their views on the matter.
First of all, what is epilepsy? It is a disease much better described maybe by its negative effects than its positive effects. Generally, epilepsy is not hereditary, nor contagious. It does not make one sick or unable to work nor does it make one mentally deficient; therefore, an epileptic is not less intelligent than any other individual.
Epilepsy can be described as a disorder of the nervous system, a very complex illness with the brain as its vital center. It can exist as le petit mal or as Ze grand mal. Usually, Ze petit mal is the phase of the illness in childhood or youth.
And today, the question is asked? How many epileptics are there in Canada? We have no

statistics available, but according to the criteria usually accepted in the principal countries of the world which actively contend with that disease, it can be said that one individual out of 200 suffers from epilepsy. In Canada, it is generally recognized that about 100,000 persons are affected by epilepsy at various degrees. That is why it is so important.
Mr. Speaker, I said a while ago that statistics are incomplete or non-existent. As a matter of fact, epileptic cases are usually concealed by the parents, and they are not to be blamed entirely because they realize much more than others that in our Canadian society-and I would say that the same situation applies in almost every country of the world-the epileptic is discriminated against at school and within the community.
And yet, following the advancement of modern science, when the epileptic gets all the required medical and surgical care, statistics clearly establish that about 50 per cent are completely cured, that there is a marked reduction of attacks in some 30 per cent of cases and that there are around 20 per cent of cases for which medicine can do nothing yet.
Having said this, one can wonder what the situation is for the thousands of epileptics in Canada and what we actually do to help them. If we answer frankly, we must admit, I think, that we do nothing, or almost nothing, in the face of a tragedy that takes place under our very eyes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to try and describe this unfortunate situation and suggest, in the light of what is done at present in the world, some means of helping those sick people.
First of all, at school: as soon as the illness is diagnosed, the child is immediately asked to leave school. That is the situation in Quebec, as well as in all the other provinces, I believe. If there are honourable exceptions, I would very much like to know about them. It is obvious that if it is known beforehand that he is an epileptic, the child is not admitted to school. Therefore, unless his parents can afford to hire a private tutor, the epileptic child is, first of all, illiterate. He is kept away from school, from children his own age with whom he could play. Thus he grows up isolated from other people and quickly develops all the complexes that make his illness worse.
When the child becomes an adult, he has no future except unemployment, because the same discrimination exists with regard to the
27507-3-201
Assistance to Epileptics adult epileptic. And yet, nothing prevents the epileptic from getting married because, usually, the illness is not hereditary, but through neglect and lack of understanding, he is not permitted like other citizens, to take an active part in society. Those are, briefly, facts which can be seen every day, if one stops and thinks about the epileptic's problem.
In Canada, at present, there are only very few observation, research and guidance centres for epileptics. I know that the Dieppe Foyer performs an enormous task with meagre means. However, there again, only men are admitted and only a very small number of patients can take advantage of those facilities.
If we look at the other countries of the world, we find a large scale offensive against the effects of that disease.
In France, the St. Paul medical centre in Marseilles, the most modern in Europe, has developed a research bureau with substantial grants from the French government. Famous doctors from the whole world are fighting a real international fight against that disease. Examination of young patients allows for a well co-ordinated guidance and, where a complete cure is not obtained, the child at least, is guided in such a way that he does not become a liability to society.
In the United States, the epileptic foundation in Washington is leading the fight on the American national level. Research work is concentrated there, and its results are made known to the American public through tracts and booklets. This informative publicity is directed toward parents, school teachers and the public at large.
In Great Britain, a specific act of which I have here a copy, was passed in 1954, under the title "Disabled Persons Employment Act". In addition to research work being done in Great Britain, this legislation provides that epileptics may be employed by the British government and industry. It provides that, in proportion to the number of employees of a particular industry or in the civil service, the employer must, under penalty of offence and fine, employ epileptics for the types of jobs they can properly discharge.
In Canada, I believe the time has come to become conscious of this problem and to take immediate action in the interest of epileptics.
I would remind you that we now have nearly 100,000 persons suffering from this illness in Canada. Only in extreme cases can they obtain a disability pension which
3178	HOUSE OF
Assistance to Epileptics is not conducive to a solution of their problem. I am of the opinion that we should ponder the problem a little while in order to consider immediate measures.
What can we do? What action could be taken at once to allay and improve the conditions of epilepsy sufferers?
First of all, I shall deal with the most important problem, that of education and training of children. At the earliest opportunity, we should, in co-operation with the provinces, find means to educate epileptic children. Let us start by providing those children with the education which will permit them to take their place in our society.
In other countries, figures show eloquently that epileptics cling to education as if it were their sheet-anchor, and that everywhere they are making very remarkable progress.
Second, we should do something at once for epileptic adults. Today these people are without hope, while it seems that we do not care about them. I think we should do what was done in Great Britain, that is we should pass legislation providing for the employment of a certain amount of epileptics in the civil service and in private industry.
I believe that if a campaign were launched along those lines-and I imagine that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) is quite often called upon to address certain clubs, such as the Rotary or others-that if the example came from higher up, all our businessmen and industrialists, who are generally very generous, were they placed before that problem, would react by doing their part to place some epileptics in certain types of jobs.
I therefore suggest two main lines of action: first of all, education for the young; and employment, in all cases where it is possible, both in private industry and in the civil service.
If we take such action, we shall have done much, we shall have demonstrated, above all, to that great number of sick citizens that we are beginning to look after them; we shall have done much also to eliminate that misunderstanding which unfortunately is too often prevalent among the public.
But there would be much to do. We would need in every province a medical research center where we could give vocational guidance to young epileptics and re-education to adults. I think the national health department could send observers on the spot to Washington, France and Great Britain where they could get acquainted with the most


modern methods of fighting that disease and its effects. The department should also inform the public about that disease and about what every individual can do to lessen its effects, by using pamphlets and booklets to appeal to the sympathy of our educators and of our people.
When it comes to epilepsy, it is indicated in some reports that medicine, in spite of all scientific developments, cannot do everything, and that lasting improvement in the state of health of epileptics largely depends on their living conditions at home, at school and within society.
I hope this debate will have contributed, at least in part, to the desired result.
(Text):


Jean Casselman Wadds: Mr. Speaker, may I commend the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) for his very obvious interest in the problem of epilepsy, an interest which we all very definitely share with him. It is a problem that arouses the deepest sympathy of every member in this house and, I am sure, every Canadian. We would all like to do everything possible for the unfortunate sufferers from this unhappy problem, and to see that they are given every opportunity, as he has pointed out, of receiving all possible educational assistance as well as medical assistance.
There is, of course, this same concern over disabilities of all different types. The problem, as the hon. member himself has mentioned, is that many of the things he wishes to achieve are difficult to initiate at the federal level. The house knows that many of the matters which he introduces in this motion have traditionally rested in provincial hands.
In so far as labour legislation is concerned, the first item in the hon. member's motion, my own view is very much against the rigidity of the compulsory employment of certain numbers of epileptics. It seems to me that the promotion of sympathy and understanding for all disabilities, combined with increased attention to their education, is a much sounder and stronger approach than the technique of compulsion, which has major disadvantages. First, there is always a certain amount of resentment when anything is compulsory. This would be particularly unfortunate in the very area where the intention is quite otherwise, in fact the very real need is otherwise. Second, if there is a compulsory number, it discourages sympathetic efforts and attitudes towards the greatest possible co-operation with handicapped persons in the very particular places where they find the very best chances for adjustment.

In many countries it is thought that the introduction of a quota system can tend to downgrade the jobs made available to disabled persons, and that employers tend to provide the most marginal jobs just to fulfil the quota. It is thought in some countries that the full abilities of disabled persons would not be recognized by employers under a quota system, and further that the disabled person himself would have some feeling that he might not have been hired because of his own particular ability. A classic example of the quota system and the supplementary of designated employment is in operation in Great Britain. Under the disabled persons act, every employer who has 20 or more workers is required to employ a quota, at present 3 per cent, of the registered disabled persons, and the act also provides a register.
For the most part employers have kept to this obligation and there have been very few cases where actual proceedings in law had to be taken. However, the committee of inquiry on the rehabilitation, training and settlement of disabled persons, reporting in 1956 noted that although they received no evidence that the quota system should be abolished they had been made aware that in the Scandinavian countries the quota system was not favoured, on the ground that in time of full employment it was unnecessary and in a period of depression it was unenforceable. Furthermore the committee went on to note that from the evidence received although the quota system has been of some assistance to settlement officers in placement work, its main value has not been here but rather to the value given publicity among employers. The committee recommended therefore that the quota system should not be abolished in Great Britain, but because of the educational importance of it it is clearly the British view that this placement by expert officers is dependent on the goodwill and co-operation of the employer.
In all countries the trend seems to be away from compulsory provisions that can cause ill feeling and perhaps even result in the placement of the disabled in jobs that might actually prove dangerous to them. The emphasis must be on filling needs on an individual basis with particular regard to the skills and physical capabilities of the persons concerned.
Considerable strides are already being made and I do take exception to the mover of the motion when he suggests that very little attention has been given to the problem of epilepsy. I think I can show him that considerable attention has been given to the problem. Strides have been taken in the area of improving skills, particularly through 27507-3-201J
Assistance to Epileptics an act to provide for the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons, recently passed under the auspices of the Minister of Labour. Under the terms of this act, in co-operation with the provinces the federal government is making it financially easier to assess the condition of a disabled person, find out the best means by which he can be guided to suitable employment and provide medical treatment or any necessary equipment. Costs are shared equally by the two senior levels of government and the program should have far reaching implications.
There are many tasks which can be performed well by disabled persons and I know the government is anxious to foster recognition of this, both inside the civil service and in industry generally. It seems to me, however, that there is still a great deal of public education to be done in this regard and there is still considerable reticence on the part of the handicapped themselves in admitting their problems and disabilities. This situation of course will be somewhat eased and improved as public education increases and sympathy thereby increases.
Much has been done and still can be done through large companies which have industrial physicians and nurses. There are, however, as we know, many small companies which do not have and may not be in a position to contemplate medical services of any kind in the near future. In this case general public acceptance and understanding of disabilities, including epilepsy, will gradually open increased employment possibilities. In this respect the Canadian epilepsy foundation, with its headquarters in Toronto, is doing admirable work, and such groups deserve every possible encouragement and support.
Within the civil service disabled persons are employed wherever their capabilities fit some particular position, and I believe that the federal government is giving a very strong lead in this respect. To require the employment of a fixed percentage would create many difficulties in terms of decisions as to who could or could not be hired, and where they could or could not be placed, and it seems to me this is very nearly unworkable in this country.
The hon. member speaks of the possibility of increasing the research work on epilepsy but here, as elsewhere, we run into the problem of provincial responsibility. The national health grants program was established to help provinces expand their own research programs and related matters, but decisions as to where the emphasis should be placed are made in the provincial capitals.
Since this government came to office it has increased the available amount of hospital

Assistance to Epileptics construction grants by 55 per cent, and other national health grants by 20.5 per cent, with a view to stimulating progress in all health fields. The Foyer Dieppe, which the hon. member mentions, has benefited to a considerable degree, in fact to the extent of over a quarter of a million dollars. Since 1957 it has received this total from federal funds, and indeed the federal contribution to the problem of epilepsy throughout the whole country has been $1,126,000. This has assisted epileptics throughout the whole of Canada.
Since the mover of the motion seems to feel so strongly that so little has been done, I might just break this total down. Foyer Dieppe has received in federal assistance, already expended or approved, the amount of $292,323; Hotel Dieu du Sacre-Coeur has received expended or approved federal assistance in the amount of $596,426; and the Montreal Neurological Institute $47,256.
In Ontario we have the outstanding epilepsy centre in Woodstock which has received federal assistance expended or approved in the amount of $149,452. In Saskatchewan we have the University hospital in Saskatoon which has received $8,713, and in British Columbia the British Columbia epilepsy society in Vancouver has received $32,406 for the employment of personnel for the operation of an epilepsy centre.
In 1953 the British government appointed a committee of inquiry on the rehabilitation, training and resettlement of disabled persons, and in 1956 they brought forward a very interesting report. On page 74 of this report there is particular mention of epileptics and it is interesting to note this statement;
The most important finding of the report is that recent advances in medical knowledge offer much greater hope that epilepsy can be controlled, particularly if they can be made generally and readily available through an organized pattern of specialist units... This means that it should be easier in the future than in the past for an increased proportion of epileptics to live a normal life in the community, whether as schoolchildren receiving education in ordinary schools or as workers taking a normal place in open industry. Clearly this should be the objective. There must, however, be some proportion however small, who will need special provision whether for short or long periods, in the same way as other disabled persons-for example, special schools, rehabilitation units, sheltered employment, residential hostels, etc. Their needs require also the same close co-operation between the different authorities responsible for the different services which the committee has emphasized elsewhere.
The Canadian government's attitude at the present time follows this recommendation very closely, as can be seen from the considerable amounts expended or authorized already, in the medical services towards helping epileptics in their physical improvement and development, and also in different types
[Mrs. Casselman.j
of rehabilitation training and educational assistance for those who are definitely handicapped.
It is my very strong feeling that there are definite dangers in seeking to establish legislative authority for one group of handicapped persons, with the very possible exclusion or neglect of others, however unintentional this may be. Circumstances change from year to year, and in general there is more to be said for an approach where the provinces are free to gear their programs to the needs of their own citizens and afterwards approach the federal authorities for the necessary aid.
Rehabilitation matters are of great significance in the whole general field of social welfare. This year we have seen legislative authority provided to establish a national council of welfare to advise the government on all aspects of the welfare situation. I would hope that it will turn its attention to this area of epilepsy and all disabled persons, and make suggestions as to how and where the government's present activities can be improved. They will thereby be adding to the already valuable advice we receive from the national council of welfare, and have been receiving for many years.
This morning I had the honour to welcome on behalf of the minister the federal-provincial conference of public health nurses. This is their second conference, the first being held in February of 1961. Representatives from the provinces are gathered here in Ottawa in a very impressive group. They are experienced in and deeply concerned with this important public service. This is another avenue, it seems to me, through which we will have increasing opportunities for assisting in all health problems, including recognition of the different types of epilepsy and advice as to how and where the best treatment and rehabilitation can be obtained for them. This growth of co-operation between different branches of government in any field is encouraging, and it is most particularly encouraging in the field of public health. I believe we can expect from this conference and subsequent conferences on public health nursing an increased understanding, an increased ambition toward definite, co-operative aims which will lead to very improved methods of dealing with this problem which the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) has rightly brought forward, and it will also include very serious consideration of the problems of all disabled Canadian people.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to acknowledge our indebtedness to the hon. member for

Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. As we consider the notice of motion that is on the order paper we note that there are some particular clauses regarding which we might raise some objection and some question, but I think all of us recognize the intent of this motion and feel that the hon. member has, as I have said, made a valuable contribution in bringing it to the attention of the house.
It seems to me that in the consideration of a measure such as this there are a great many other issues that might enter into it. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare has referred to some of the problems involved. In her remarks the hon. lady has pointed out the possibility of discrimination-and I use that word advisedly-if we endeavour to make legislation apply to only certain classifications of our citizens. I would prefer to consider this in its broader aspect, not only stressing the importance of consideration for those who are suffering from this particular handicap but those who are suffering from other handicaps or disabilities which make it difficult for them to fit into the picture of employment across the country.
I believe some categories of our citizens are subjected to some form of discrimination in their search for profitable employment. I think that often this discrimination results from ignorance, but there are times when it is the result of economic considerations. Those engaged in industry hesitate to employ people who are suffering from various types of handicaps or disabilities because they feel there would be an interruption in service on the part of the employees which could result in a loss of efficiency as far as their operations are concerned. I think that research has proven this fear groundless. In fact, it has often been established that those who are handicapped in some particular way more than offset that difficulty by their devotion and diligence to the tasks assigned to them, which qualities may often be lacking in those who are not handicapped.
Therefore I feel that this word of exhortation might go out not only to governments but also to private industry, not to discriminate against those who may be handicapped in this or other ways, but rather give them an opportunity to engage in profitable and productive employment to the very highest degree of their ability and qualifications. I agree with the suggestions made by the parliamentary secretary to the minister in stating that it would be very difficult to set a specific percentage to be employed by the civil service, and I would once again emphasize the fact that rather than place it in that
Assistance to Epileptics particular context we would suggest that no discrimination be practised when it comes to a matter of the employment of employable epileptics and those who are suffering from other types of disability.
The question of the education of epileptic children is a very important consideration. Whether or not the suggestion made in clause 2 would be applicable in all circumstances is perhaps open to question. I would not be in a position to pass judgment on that particularly, except to say that I believe consideration would have to be given to individual cases and to the degree of affliction in this respect. Reference has been made to the matter of research and treatment centres. It would seem to me that this is a field into which the federal government could move in a very constructive manner. Once again the parliamentary secretary has indicated the contributions which have been made in this respect. However, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that as far as the provision of these facilities is concerned-that is, treatment centres and so on-our suggestion relative to the use of a municipal development bank would be very useful. Through the provision of social capital through the Bank of Canada we could make a greater amount of money available for the erection of these institutions and for the facilities which are required for the effective treatment of these people.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I rose only to indicate support of the principle or motive incorporated in this particular measure, but I suggest there should be-as there is, I believe-a growing awareness on the part of society to bear its responsibility in assisting those who are handicapped in any way, giving them the fullest opportunity to co-operate and participate in activities and make the highest contribution possible under the circumstances. We are, as I have said, very happy to give support to the motive and principle contained in this measure.


Mr. R. W. Pritiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, we of course support the principle stated in this motion. I have not had very much experience with epileptics, although as a teacher I can tell hon. members that a great many of them do attend the ordinary schools. Of course, it depends upon the individual and the degree of the infirmity, but many of them do attend schools. The teachers are simply notified that this person is an epileptic and in most cases there is no particular problem. The affected students fit in with the school pattern well provided they are not severe cases.
I have had experience with another type of handicapped. Of course, there are mental as well as physical handicaps, and for some years I was associated with the affairs of a
3182	HOUSE OF
Assistance to Epileptics home for retarded children in my own constituency of Burnaby. The type of handicap is different, but the problem of obtaining employment is the same. Another factor which must be considered is the considerable burden which falls on the parents. In the last few years the associations for retarded children in all the provinces have done a great job in making governments at various levels aware of the needs of retarded children. In my own province, governments, both municipal and provincial, have responded to these needs, after considerable pressure, by providing places in local schools or by providing special schools for these children. In my own province, after a number of years of endeavour, we do now have most of the retarded children attending schools at public expense.
The associations have now moved on and are trying to do something for adults and teenagers. Sheltered workshops have been set up which these people can attend and at which they can receive the necessary technical training. After a probationary period, they receive pay. They are not doing make-work jobs but are carrying out useful tasks. When companies want particular jobs done, the sheltered workshops do them and, in turn, pay the retarded adults who are working there.
It has always seemed unfortunate to me that there has to be such a vigorous program of public education before we make a move in these matters. The pattern seems to be the same everywhere. The people affected, in many cases the parents of handicapped children, have to form an association and carry out a program of public education before they can get governments to act. I would feel better if this country and those in a position of responsibility would recognize that these problems exist and do something about them before they are forced to take action. We know very well what our health and social needs are. We do not need to be told, in many cases.
There is one other aspect of this subject to which I should like to refer. I do not think we can divorce the difficulty which handicapped adults find in obtaining employment from the general economic situation. It is difficult enough for these people to get employment at the best of times, but when there are a large number of unemployed in this country it is still more difficult for them. I hope the day will come in Canada when we have a period of full employment and even a labour shortage, because I think it will be much better for these people at that time.
[Mr. Prittie.J

We cannot get away from the fact that it is very hard indeed for them to get employment.
The parliamentary secretary-and I congratulate her on having certainly done her homework on this topic-has spoken against the idea put forward in subparagraph (1) of this resolution, that some compulsion should be applied regarding the employment of epileptics. Unfortunately, I think this would be necessary in many cases because if there were not some compulsion very few would be hired. The hon. lady did answer a number of questions on this topic and I should be pleased if before this debate is over she would answer one other question. She said that the civil service, or the government, was employing a certain number of epileptics. I should like to know, if possible, how many are at present in employment. If this question cannot be answered today, perhaps she will answer it at a later time. However, I am glad that something is being done in this connection. The hon. lady also gave us information concerning the amounts granted to the various societies in the provinces for work in this field. I noted that $32,406 was mentioned in connection with the British Columbia association. I must say in this connection that it does not seem like a very large amount. Perhaps I might have some information on this subject as well: is this a case where more money would not help solve the problem, or is it all the money that is available as a grant at this time? The parliamentary secretary has pointed out that certain things have been done, and we are very glad of that. Nevertheless, the motion which has been put forward today does serve a useful purpose. It reminds us all of this subject, and although the department may be doing something there is certainly no reason for self satisfaction. I hope it will serve as a reminder, to bring this matter to the fore and keep it in the mind of the department.


Jean Casselman Wadds: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. lady having sat down and concluded her speech is precluded from taking the floor again even to answer a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that in these exceptional circumstances there would be unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, there is some time left to the hon. lady. If she wishes to answer and the house is prepared to give her the time there will be no objection.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Casselman Wadds: I am embarrassed to receive so much courtesy. I only wish to say

that I do not have the answer to that question at the moment but I shall be glad to get it immediately.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: As one
who is vitally interested in the broad scheme of rehabilitation I want to send a salute to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) for bringing to public attention this frightening question of the problem of the epileptic. It is not confined, of course, to the epileptic alone, as has been pointed out by the hon. member who has just spoken; it is a problem which faces disabled persons generally. Somehow, however, the case of the epileptic is the most frightening because it is a shocking experience for people who are not in daily contact with epileptics to witness an epileptic seizure. It seems to me there is a terrific amount of prejudice and misunderstanding about this disease, as previous speakers have said. I myself, would question the advisability of singling out this one disability for special attention and for special legislation. However, the subject well merits discussion and deserves public attention to be focused on it. Modern society still seems to cherish some medieval ideas about this whole subject of epilepsy. The epileptic appears to suffer a double handicap; it is not only the illness itself but the prejudice and misconception surrounding it which he has to overcome before he stands a chance in the labour market. We are, of course, speaking of the employable epileptic.
I have wondered what could be done about rehabilitating other disabled persons and I was interested to hear what the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont told us about legislation in the United Kingdom parliament. I think he described it as the disabled persons employment act. I was, therefore, somewhat surprised to hear him centre his motion on the epileptic. I think he would have been better advised to have included other disabled persons as well. I think it is not feasible to guarantee employment by legislation alone. In fact, I wonder sometimes just how useful legislation can be in achieving an object which we would all agree to be desirable. Largely it is this question of public attitude which surrounds any disability. I think the hon. member has referred to the work done by the association of retarded children, just as other work has been done for people who have other afflictions. We need a public education program which will induce the public mind to consider people who are less than completely or abnormally physically endowed for various enterprises in the field of employment, education, research and so forth.
Assistance to Epileptics
One of the difficulties about the epileptic is, I suppose, the misconception that he is often less intelligent. I think that research would certainly bear out the fact that this is no more so than in any group of population which is physically normal. There is always a spread of intelligence. Largely the lack of knowledge in the epileptic is due to the fact that he has not the opportunities of education because in some areas and in some instances he has not been accepted in the schools among normal children. As far as the section of this motion which refers to including epileptic children in ordinary schools is concerned, comments have been made about this, but I would certainly question the advisability of doing this in toto. I believe that certain epileptic children would be better helped if they were at least in special classrooms where they would have the treatment they need if and when they were subject to seizures, and where they would not be perhaps subject to ridicule or much excitement by other children, were they unfortunate enough to have a seizure. Therefore I cannot quite accept the suggestion of the hon. member in the second part of his motion that measures should be introduced to admit children into ordinary schools. I am sure that on further elucidation he would say he meant that only in certain cases would this be so. The question of legislation is still only a secondary solution. I think the broadest improvement which could benefit any disabled person is to have a greater public awareness of the needs of disabled people.
When we speak of having concern for the individual rights of people-I think this is a phrase which we have heard in more recent times-we must not forget the rights of disabled people as well. Certainly these rights are denied if they have not been given equal opportunities of education, of employment, or even given accepted places in society as healthy persons with whom to associate. Sometimes they are so much isolated that they fear to be part of the normal community even though they could well find a useful place in the community. So that really more necessary, I suggest, than education would be research and vocational training. These facilities would require, of course, substantial grants from the government, and I think they would be forthcoming if they were submitted to the appropriate legislature, which I presume in most cases would be the provincial governments.
I also think there has to be a wide program of public education which would make the average person more aware of just how much these people can really contribute to our community. I think it is a mistake if we let people
3184	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board just live off assistance because they are disabled. This is certainly not the answer. There is in all labour some dignity, and anyone who is working wants to know that he is doing something worth while, and that he is earning his keep. Therefore, even if it needs to be a sheltered workshop, or a specialized centre for epileptics or other disabled persons, he needs to have some satisfaction in his work.
I feel that these are areas for private agencies who have already done so much to meet various human needs in our communities and to enable them better to develop. Because private agencies have a capacity for community involvement which is much better and greater, and are much more capable than any act of parliament. That is because they are interested in epileptics and form a group, a chapter or agency to try and aid the needy epileptics. In that way you are much closer to the problem and much more vitally and personally interested; therefore, the results are much more far reaching. Of course, aid is required from government finances. However, the initiating program I suggest would be best advanced by the widening of the scope of private agencies which already exist in this field.
It is to be hoped that all levels of the community and all levels of industry will examine and re-examine their employment practices where they can, and in that manner will afford to disabled persons, including epileptics, employment possibilities. This is necessary in order that the achievement of an elemental human right is attained-that is, the right to live and work in a normal way. I feel that the hon. member has done a great service to the epileptic by introducing this resolution, and the very fact that there has been this spirited and interesting discussion will be of benefit to all these disabled persons.
(Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry but the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon) had given me no indication of his wish to participate in this debate. That is why I did not recognize him sooner.
The time appointed for the consideration of private members' bills being expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-87, to provide for the
[Stage Direction]

establishment of a national economic development board-Mr. Nowlan-Mr. Paul in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

(Text):
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock I had completed my congratulations to the minister who is guiding this bill through the house, had made some comment upon the general condition of sterility in the bill itself and was beginning to pay some attention to the fact that one section of the bill deals with the very important consideration of paying more attention to Canada's balance of trade and trading position. It is with that particular aspect of the bill, which is designed to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board, that I want to say a few words to the committee tonight.
Last week a very important speech was made by a very important man. I refer to the speech made by Mr. R. M. Fowler which has now been published and which he has titled, "Wanted, A Trade Policy". It might well be argued that Mr. Fowler represents a definite segment of the Canadian economy but I think every member of the house will agree that he is a very well informed Canadian and a very able businessman, that his views should be listened to, and that the government of the day should profit therefrom. Inferentially he suggests that we do not have a trade policy, and he wants a trade policy. He wants a policy directed toward a definite objective for Canada today and in the future.
I think we might well profit from a consideration of the historic position of Canada in trade. In the early days of Canada and government in Canada I think there must have been a widely held opinion in this country that we could make some permanent long time arrangement with the country to the south. When that failed there emerged in its place the historic national policy of Canada and the name of Sir John A. Macdonald. Quite obviously the concept at that time was that the central provinces would manufacture goods for Canada which would be transported on transcontinental railways to areas whose raw materials would be sold, and the proceeds used to buy the manufactured products of central Canada. That policy served us in its day and we went on to other things.
In the period between the two great wars we built up in Canada the historic so-called

triangle of trade. We sold great quantities of goods to the United Kingdom and became very interested in commonwealth trade, particularly the advantages given us under commonwealth agreements. We took pounds sterling which were transferable very easily into our currency to enable us to buy tremendous quantities of manufactured goods from the United States. If you study the period between the wars you will find that is the trading history of Canada in that particular period.
During the period of the second world war tremendous demands were made upon Canada in the area of things which we were able to provide and manufacture and as a result of particularly good management we came for the first time to the point where I think we could consider ourselves at least in part an industrial nation. Now we are confronted with a new set of circumstances in the world where great trading blocs are rising and where agreements are being made not between one nation and another but between blocs of nations, and I think it is time now for us to inspect again the basic, fundamental problems that we have within our own country.
I come from a province which at the present time is selling to the United States $50 million worth of goods per month or about $600 million a year. About $125 million is represented by sales of energy in the form of oil and gas. We also sell $204 million worth of lumber per year. These articles are basically raw materials which British Columbians are finding command basement bargain prices in world trade, the lowest possible prices at which any goods are sold. At the same time that we are selling $50 million worth of goods per month to the United States, according to figures which are the most accurate I could obtain from our provincial department, though I would not say they are absolutely accurate, our trade with that old historic province of New Brunswick only amounts to about three quarters of a million dollars per year. When we look askance and are worried about great trading blocs and the common market, I think we must also admit that within our own country we have failed dismally to create a common market in Canada. This, of course, is a regional matter. I know that the minister is aware of the situation because I know I am aware of it.
I want to draw his attention to the fact that from Prince George in the central interior of our province we ship about $80 million to $100 million worth of lumber per year. Historically this lumber has gone to the head of the lakes and from there largely to United States markets around Buffalo. At the present time the shippers of this lumber 27507-3-202
National Economic Development Board are faced with the Damoclean sword of a threatened 17 per cent increase in freight rates, when the lumber is already bearing an impost of $34 per thousand to reach Buffalo. I think the minister will agree with me that if the railways were suddenly granted the 17 per cent to which they claim they are entitled, and this amount was added to the cost, it would be extremely doubtful that the lumber industry there could survive, and at this time I know of no other market for that particular grade of lumber.
These are conditions within this immense industry which have arisen out of our history, out of geography, and which we have to face. I think we should face them in a spirit, not of what we hope Canada might be, not what we see in other countries, but considering the development of Canada and in the love of Canada as she is and not what we might hope she is. These are difficulties with which we are confronted and they require, I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, a far different attitude on the part of our federal government than we have seen in recent months and in recent years. It gets back to this, that in these matters of trade policy which Mr. Fowler is suggesting, we must seek to adopt a policy for our own country which is intelligent, honest, honourable and promises respect in the various parts of this country.
I notice that in Ontario they have a man named Macaulay, who is making certain suggestions. It may well be that for the short term period they may be of advantage to the people of Ontario. However, I doubt very much if that sort of thing is going to be of long term advantage to the people of Ontario. I am going to suggest to the minister, and I am quite sure he would agree with me, that the same condition pertains in the old, historic provinces down by the sea. This sort of policy which is implicit in what Mr. Macaulay is suggesting is not of any value to them and it is not of value to us in western Canada. As a matter of fact, I know of no one in western Canada who needs a hippopotamus, and I do not know of anyone at the moment who wants one.
I think we need to adopt a policy based upon the promise of support from the most people in Canada. We know that in western Canada there are some industries who would find it to their advantage to have complete free trade tomorrow morning. I am going to say very frankly to you that those industries in western Canada know that they cannot have free trade tomorrow morning. At the same time, they cannot stand the backdoor preferences that have been brought in by the government in recent months. I am not going into the question of whether they were
3186	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board legal or illegal, but nevertheless there is protectionism being brought in. The minister has from time to time assured us that these protectionisms are for the short term; they are going to be removed.
I have another aspect of trade that I should like to bring forward, about which I am going to make suggestions to the minister later. I think that today we are dependent for the maintenance of the economy of Canada, to the extent of almost 30 per cent, upon our exports. I have found, in the last year for which I have figures, 1961, that of our total exports no less than 54.5 per cent went to the United States. In that same year, of our imports, no less than 67 per cent were brought in from the United States. The second most important trading nation to us is, of course, the mother country. In 1961, we sold, of our total exports, some 15.6 per cent to her and we brought back some 10.7 per cent of our total imports.
I made inquiry, too, about our trade relations that exist between Canada and the signatories of the treaty of Rome, in other words the members of the common market. I found, somewhat to my dismay, that of our total exports to those countries in 1961, only
8.4	per cent went to all the members of the common market. From them, we bought only
6.4	per cent of our total imports. When we add these figures together, both exports and imports, we realize that Canada is a north Atlantic trading nation, without any question. Our past experience having been in that direction, I think we may safely assume that our future is going to lie in that direction, too.
I have a criticism to make of the government at this time because, to the south of us, we have the President of the United States submitting to congress and successfully obtaining therefrom, legislation which was called the trade expansion act of 1962. We, on this side of the house, like to call it the trade liberalization act. This act gives to the president of the United States extraordinary powers to make agreements, not with one nation but with groups of nations such as the common market. Here, it seems to me, is a clear invitation to Canada to improve her position by making available to Canadians the export market containing 300 million people rather than the small market of 18 million people which we have at home. I think the government has been remiss because I am quite certain that this government has not pressed this matter with the President of the United States or with his secretary of commerce.
We go on attempting to purchase from the United States some $460 million to $480 million worth of goods more than we sell to


them. I do not believe it should be difficult for our leaders to impress upon the President of the United States and his secretary of commerce that Canada cannot go on interminably borrowing half a billion dollars in cash down there to buy goods from them, when there is this invitation to reduce tariffs. I want to ask this government, to ask the minister, to what extent they have gone to the United States and placed Canada's position before the United States. Have they said to them, certainly, we want to equate our balance, but we want to equate our balance with you not by going on buying imports to the extent of half a billion dollars, but by asking you to reduce your tariffs to the point where we can sell half a billion dollars worth of goods to you. It would seem to me that would be the positive approach and that would be the best way of taking the furrow out of the brow of the Minister of Labour annually in the wintertime when we seem, in Canada, to come to the position where employment is related to the condition of the equinox.
I find that many of the industries in which we have exports are the resources industries largely dealing with materials in their raw state. There is a totally inadequate and unhappy amount of Canadian labour content in those things we are selling. I find that in the automobile manufacturing industry in Canada today there is almost 10 per cent of the value of the automobile that is made up of labour. This, in Canada, is a fairly high percentage. In the case of the fruit and vegetable canning industry, the labour content is 10 per cent in relation to the total value of the manufactured goods. In so far as crude petroleum and natural gas is concerned, Mr. Chairman, do you know that the labour content is only 4 per cent of the total value of the goods sold?
Now, I am not going to disparage the labour that goes into the development aspect of that industry. This represents a tremendous expenditure of money.


George Clyde Nowlan: Have you got the figures for minerals?


Arthur Laing: 
Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, I think I can do no better in this debate tonight than to have my first remarks concerned with a leading editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail on December 8 last, and in quoting it I would like to point out I shall quote every word that is in it. Some of the words and sentences are to some extent critical of my own party, but we on this side of the house do not leave out quotations which happen to be critical of us.


Mr. Ricard:: That is a low insinuation; it belongs to you.


James Edgar Walker: The quotation is:
Now that it is decided that parliament will not resume alter Christmas until January 21, the belief in Ottawa is that the new budget will not come down until February at the earliest. With the precarious state of the government in the Commons, it appears possible that we shall be precipitated

National Economic Development Board
into a new election before any attempt is made to tackle the root causes of our economic difficulties.
In all these circumstances it is becoming increasingly difficult to escape the impression that the government is deliberately holding back on important and controversial legislation for fear of suffering a defeat in the Commons. As this newspaper has suggested before, such tactics would be a grave mistake.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but, as he pointed out to the committee that he was going to quote the editorial in complete detail, I wish to say that so far as the quotation has gone it has not any application to the bill under consideration. If he would be prepared to assist me in that regard I might review the opinion I express now. We are talking about a bill to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board, and I would caution the hon. member about quoting the editorial in full because hon. members of the committee have their own opportunity to read it and no doubt most of them have read it. If he can apply certain passages that are closely related to the bill, then I shall be glad to hear him.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Chairman, this is what I was attempting to do. I had no intention of quoting the whole article. This has to do with the long term measures which were proposed by the government in the throne speech, and certainly one of the long term measures we might expect is an effective economic development board. That is how the editorial is associated with it, but if the chairman and the committee desire me not to go further into the part where it deals with some of the faults it finds with the Liberal party, then I shall be quite happy to leave that particular part out. As it says in this editorial, there is no sign yet of the long term measures, and it was in that connection I gave the quotation from this national newspaper which has not been unfriendly to the government. This is a judgment of a reputable newspaper which I believe has the interests of Canada at heart. This is an editorial expression of the kind of concern for Canada that I myself had when earlier this session I said this:
It is not only this minority Conservative government's reputation that is at stake at this time ... but there is something of much greater importance about which I want to speak, although the government's reputation has a direct bearing on this other matter, and that is the question of the confidence of Canadians in the ability of our free parliamentary democracy to supply the answers and chart the course for the great social changes that are now under way in Canada.
Then I went on to speak of the government's apparent incapacity to understand the kind of social ferment and unrest that is bubbling away under the surface of our national life

and which occasionally manifests itself publicly in a number of undesirable ways. The gravest dangers to Canada's unity and economic independence lie in the months and immediate years ahead. No longer will any government be able to cap the well or hold back our people's aspirations by expedient grants, handouts or appointments in a piecemeal fashion. We are faced with a ground-swell of what I think of as a frustrated Canadian spirit that yearns for greatness for our country; that calls for Canada's sympathetic and helpful identification with the emerging nations; that desires deeply the respect of our traditional friends and neighbours; that wants to believe in political morality and the courage of conviction; that is struggling toward a proud and satisfying Canadian identity in the family of nations.
This failure by the government to "understand tomorrow", to borrow Rabbi Rosenberg's phrase, is what is holding this country back. This failure to understand tomorrow is what makes possible the rise of demagogues and tyrants, or maybe we are in the grip of them already. But we must do more than understand tomorrow. A government must have policies for Canada that prove they do understand tomorrow and know what is going on, and that they are capable of leading the country forward. For instance, where is the integrated, comprehensive policy that would make the C.N.R. a useful instrument in the economic recovery of Canada's depressed areas? As my colleague from Antigonish-Guysborough pointed out in his excellent speech on Thursday, December 6:
We all know that governments over the years have been concerned with this matter, and indeed went so far as to create a royal commission to look into it. The royal commission reported that by reason of the development of competition, particularly trucking competition, in central Canada the railways are having a tough time making ends meet in the extremities of the country. Consequently they apply for permission to raise their freight rates, but this permission they use to its full extent only in those extremities. Therefore the freight rates go up in the east and the west, and they are kept down in the centre of the country by reason of the competition there.
The royal commission on transportation points out:
While we recognize the complexity of the rate structure issue, we cannot help but believe that railway resistance to the adoption of a more cost-oriented basis for ratemaking is essentially unrealistic and reflects a degree of institutional rigidity which is out of place in the transportation environment of today.
Those are the words of the royal commission on transportation, and I use this example to illustrate the ridiculous situation where a publicly owned utility, owned and paid for by the Canadian taxpayer, operates in such a way as to prejudice the growth of secondary

industry in areas where such growth is of prime importance to the local taxpayer. All because of a lack of a nation-wide transportation policy we cut the economic throats of the very areas the government now says it is going to assist by setting up another board or council. I presume that this board will be working hard to counteract the penalizing policies of other boards, and all this costs money, hard earned taxpayers' money. Why spend all this money if it is not used in conjunction with a national policy designed to produce the Canada of tomorrow?
In these fast moving days we know that many airplanes-I believe we have learned this-are practically obsolete before they are off the drawing board. I submit that most of our piecemeal legislation is the same way. The basic problem is that all these bits and pieces of legislation only delay the full answer to our nation's needs because they are not connected to a national policy, and all hon. members know why. There is no national policy. There is no national policy on defence; there is no national policy on power and water resources; there is no national policy on depressed area redevelopment; there is no national policy on foreign investments in, and subsequent control of, Canadian resources and industries; there is no national policy on medical care, contributory portable pensions and other social security measures; there is no national policy on public housing.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Oh, nonsense.


James Edgar Walker: I repeat, there is no national policy on public housing.


An hon. Member:: Don't be so stupid.


Some hon. Members:: Keep on reading.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Perhaps I should have interrupted the hon. member previously to point out that, if he was quoting his colleague from another debate that has taken place this session, he was not in order. I did not interrupt him at that time because I had already interrupted him once. I now interrupt him again just to caution him about ranging too widely in his contribution and so that he will assist me in terms of relevancy, which is what I have to look for.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Chairman, I am rapidly narrowing this down to my point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Chairman, in case hon. gentlemen on the other side of the chamber did not hear me, I wish to repeat that there is no national policy as such on public housing. We can no longer afford the luxury of lack of long range policy. I believe the worst feature of this sad state is that it is being
National Economic Development Board paid for by the sacrifice of taxpaying Canadian citizens. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I am paying off the last of my income tax this month.


An hon. Member:: Good.


James Edgar Walker: That is right, it is good. We will go without things in our home in order that I may fulfil this obligation to the country. I am now saying, and the taxpayers of this country are saying: "What is the government doing with our money? We want an accounting". The people say there must be no more waste because of lack of national policy on defence, on unemployment, on depressed areas, on small business, on industrial development which we hope will be owned and controlled by Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, I served in a municipality in Ontario for a number of years, and I say that if Ontario municipalities spent tax moneys before budgets and estimates were approved by their councils they would be laying themselves open to serious charges of maladministration by the Ontario municipal board. The Tory government have leisurely but, in my view, with intent, drifted into this same serious position in connection with national expenditures of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: And they refuse to submit it to the house.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Chairman, there is no municipal board to chasten them, but there is the parliament of Canada composed of representative Canadian citizens whose legal and constitutional job is to keep an eye on how our taxes are being spent. The denial of this right is the last stage of the evasion of rights of the common man, the ordinary taxpayer, to demand an accounting of the government's use of his hard earned money.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I have endeavoured very patiently to hear the speech of the hon. member, recognizing that there will, I expect] be opportunities when he can make a speech of the nature of the one he is now giving and remain within the rules of the house or of the committee. I hope he will co-operate with the Chair and confine himself to the bill which is under consideration.


James Edgar Walker: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Will the government not now, even at this late date, trust parliament, which represents the people of this country, and bring forward national policy legislation that we can get our teeth into, that we can amend and improve, and finally pass in a co-operative effort to move Canada forward in a way our people so earnestly desire? Those who feel as I do will assist them in every way possible.
3190	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board.
If the government really means business, will it please now give this country an integrated over-all long range economic policy of national development which takes into account the urgent needs of municipalities and the small businessman, as well as our industrial complex. Will it please consolidate all its boards, commissions and development councils, which have been riding in six different directions at the same time, into one department of action for the economic growth of all regions of Canada, under a minister directly responsible to parliament, a minister available for questioning.
I understand that the genial but overworked Minister of Finance is to be responsible to parliament for the economic development board proposed in this measure. I am sure that the hon. senator who is charged with the responsibility of this board's work outside the House of Commons, is going to be very, very frustrated as he watches from the galleries the Minister of Finance explaining to the house what he thinks is in the mind of the hon. senator.
All the information is in. Information trips and reports have been made by the productivity council, the Canadian Labour Congress, the dominion bureau of statistics, the Bank of Canada and ever so many others. The municipal, national and international experts have all reported. Under this new act we are apparently now going to analyse the analysers. We are going to study their report on previous studies and reports. This is a waste of time and money.
The country is read for a policy of action that can save us our financial and political independence and achieve a rate of growth to lick unemployment and remove the immigration bars once more.
What is the government's reply to these auspicious circumstances? They say: "Let us run around the track once more. Let us have more studies and reports and recommendations." Can we not now move, or has our will and moral fibre deteriorated to the point where the government is biologically incapable of taking a strong firm decision on anything that requires a national policy.
The measure before us states that annual reports are to be submitted to the responsible minister three months after the close of each fiscal year. The government has all the information it requires right now to give the green light to the Minister of Finance to formulate a national development policy. Why wait any longer?
(Translation):


Mr. Caouetie:: Mr. Chairman, section 1 of Bill C-87 reads as follows:
This act may be cited as the National Economic Development Board Act.


For the past several hours, we have been hearing the whining and laments of our Liberal friends concerning the government's inaction. We feel ourselves that the government is not so very anxious to introduce or set up in Canada means to tap our natural resources or to develop our national economy.
On the other hand, when we hear members of the Liberal party criticize the government and accuse members of a certain party of the opposition of filibuster or of obstructing the orderly conduct of the nation's business or the administration of Canada, we wonder-* and rightly so, I am sure-why they did nothing when they were in power because, if they had done something, we would not find ourselves in the present situation.


Gilles Grégoire: Quite true.


An hon. Member:: Twenty two years. (Text):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Twenty two years.


David Réal Caouette: Twenty two years, it is a long time, Mr. Chairman.
(Translation):
People sitting on the same benches for
twenty two years.


Gilles Grégoire: Not the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).


David Réal Caouette: With the exception of the hon. member for Assiniboia, who not so long ago was sitting elsewhere.
But when we hear representatives of the Liberal party criticize the government, we wonder quite rightly, as I said before, why they did nothing during the 22 years they sat on your right.


Gilles Grégoire: Jokers, that is what they were.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Lapointe just said, they were jokers, they were incompetent-


Gilles Grégoire: It is true.


David Réal Caouette: -or ignorant.


Gilles Grégoire: Or all three.


David Réal Caouette: Well, perhaps all three- (Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: All three.
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we in this corner believe that there is a lot to be done, not only to establish a national economic development board, but also to develop our natural resources.

Yesterday, I attended meetings in the riding of Richelieu-Vercheres, a good solid Liberal riding for a number of years. I also was in the Shefford constituency where, in spite of a terrible storm, I met several thousand people.
I have also realized that the people of our counties, the average Canadians understand the problems, and especially their solutions, much more readily sometimes than certain members of parliament can or seem to.
In fact, when we ask the people of those constituencies: Is there in Canada a man or woman who is worrying about not being able to find tomorrow a dress, a topcoat or fur coat, a man's garment, a hat, in short, clothes, food or electric appliances? We get the following reply: Nobody stops to think about that, not even a single member of parliament.
There is only one question which comes to everybody's mind: Is our purchasing power sufficient for us to buy existing commodities in Canada, so that production in our country may be under the control of the Canadian people?
We must give more importance to the consumer than to the producer in Canada. Producers have but one problem, to sell their products. That is why a national economic development board which would encourage or control production in our country would in no way solve the problem. Members of parliament, like the rest of the people, must concern themselves with the problem of making it possible for consumers to buy the commodities manufactured by our producers or by the production complex in Canada.
Naturally, some hon. members and some economists will claim that that will bring inflation, that it is utopian, just like certain writers and economists who maintain that Social Credit is a utopia. Those who do not know what the word "utopia" means-and that includes several members of parliament-like to say: "It's a top; it's a top; it's a top."
Mr. Chairman, Social Crediters have a solution to offer to Canada. Not only do they offer an answer to Canada, but it is the true reason why we are assembled here and why the whole country should present today a united front, and act and exist as a single person.
Social Credit will not perform miracles.
Besides, the Liberals have never performed any, far from it. They created problems so that we could perform miracles afterwards.
National Economic Development Board
The Conservatives have not done much more in the last few years. Social Crediters do not pretend to be supermen, but they do claim that they can bring to Canada an answer likely to arouse interest, not only within our boundaries, but also outside the country.
If this economic development board now under discussion has not yet been set up, it is through the fault of the Liberals, even though they complain-as can be seen in the press-that the government has not accomplished anything since it came into power.
All rushed forward for the onslaught. Of course one can make a few suggestions concerning the national economic development board. But what practical ideas did the Liberals put forward in answer to the Conservative program? In this instance, we see quite clearly, once more, that both parties are of the same essence, that they have the same organization, an identical platform, the same fundamental principles.
Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to detain the house any longer. If the national economic development board is important to Canada and to the hon. members, let us by all means enact the bill, create that board, and ask it to create in turn the economic conditions which will-or so Canadians hope -lay the foundation for economic development.
(Text):


Mr. Webster:: Mr. Chairman, this discussion has proceeded for some considerable time, but there are one or two things I want to say on behalf of the New Democratic party. There has certainly been widespread interest in the bill we are considering at the present moment to establish a national economic development board. The reason is that people are asking, is it possible to manage and direct the development of our Canadian economy so as to correct the weaknesses which have been apparent for many years to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear? The bill might very well be called "Great Expectations", because I suggest that people are expecting great things from it. But they will be disappointed and disillusioned unless the government is wise enough to accept many of the carefully considered amendments which will be proposed by my colleagues in this corner of the house.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the success of this bill will depend on at least four things: first, an understanding of the problems to be solved; second, the sincerity of the government in promoting the concept of modern planning; third, the composition and
3192	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board competence of the board to be appointed; fourth, and probably the most important of all, the courage to implement the recommendations of the board both in the public and the private areas of our economy.
The week before this session opened last September there was an editorial in Maclean's magazine by Peter Newman, one of the most experienced and respected commentators in the newspaper field in Canada. Now, sir, I am not going to read the whole editorial, but I do crave your indulgence to read a few paragraphs which deal directly with the problem that is before us this evening. After referring to the stopgap measures adopted by this government last summer Mr. Newman continued as follows;
The cardinal task facing us now is to correct this flabby approach to economic problems. We need, first, a measure of economic planning to bring direction and purpose to the management of the nation's affairs. Economic planning in one form or another is the means by which the western European democracies have outdistanced us economically. Administrators in Washington are using-under other names-many of the methods that together make up economic planning. Ottawa is not; but sooner or later Ottawa is going to have to start...
The vital first step in the intellectual reorientation the new economic climate demands is to throw off the tyranny of words. In the past the phrase "economic planning" has been damned as socialistic doctrine-
Mr. Chairman, I recall, as has already been mentioned in this debate, that in introducing this legislation the Minister of Finance very carefully, but I think very foolishly, avoided using the word "planning" at any time. May I continue;
A planned economy does not signify state control. Rather, it is the deliberate use of those methods that can encourage government, industry and labour to co-operate voluntarily-
Until recently, most economists tended to recognize only two earlier models: the totalitarian model of Russia, and the unrestricted free enterprise model of the United States. But as Robert Fowlerto whom reference has already been made by the hon. member for Vancouver South this evening-
-the enlightened executive who heads the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association has recently been pointing out, the experience of Europe now offers us a third alternative: the choice of a free but planned economy. "To adapt this to Canada," Fowler admits, "will require profound changes in our attitudes and our laws... but it may offer the best chance of restoring rapid economic growth in this country, and a chance of achieving a distinctive national identity."
Briefly, sir, may I indicate a number of factors which merit consideration in setting up this board. First, the final purpose must be to assure the development and use of our material and human resources to the highest degree possible in the service of people here and elsewhere. Second, both private and


public sectors of the economy must play a part in any effective plan. Third, long range objectives should be established as this is not intended to meet a temporary emergency. It will be a continuing process. Fourth, the whole of Canada must be involved, not just a few isolated areas that may be particularly in difficulty at the present time. Fifth, the best available personnel should be engaged. During the war the late C. D. Howe did this successfully to prepare Canada for its war contribution. Surely we can do as well in peacetime. Sixth, co-operation of all sections of the community will be the key to the eventual success of this legislation. I am thinking at this point not just of industry, labour and government but of people generally.
I submit that if the board that will be appointed and which will be responsible for this legislation is wise it will consider the importance of this factor, that working people of all kinds need to participate more in our Canadian democracy. We need men and women from management and the unions and the civil service certainly but also from the universities, consumer groups and citizen organizations across the country.
In this age of bigness ordinary people become divorced from the end product, the results of their labours. Not only in the interests of democracy but in the interest of good mental health men and women need to be consulted more and trusted more in the management of the country's affairs. After all, this is their business. Given an opportunity to participate, Canadians would respond to a peacetime adventure of this kind with the same spirit that has always characterized our people whenever they have faced challenging problems ever since confederation, almost 100 years ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take any part in this debate on the first clause of the bill and I would not be doing so except for one of those meteoric interventions that we have from time to time when the hon. member for Villeneuve condescends to visit the chamber briefly. I did not feel I could allow some of the things he said to pass in silence and it is only to reply to one or two of them that I have risen to speak.
The hon. gentleman expressed a view with which we are certainly in agreement, and that was that the government was very slow in getting down to any kind of business. But then he went on to deny the Liberal party any right to criticize the government because we had been 22 years in office some years ago. We were in office for 22 years because

the Canadian people wanted us, but apparently, in his view, we are for all time to be stopped from saying anything in the parliament of this country. No doubt that is the conception of democracy of the hon. member for Villeneuve but it is not mine.
I simply wish to suggest to you, sir, that there is every reason on earth why the Liberals should criticize the dilatory conduct of the government. For the 400,000 unemployed, looking for jobs, which has been the average in this country since the election of 1958, taking one month with another the whole year round, the last five years have seemed a lot longer than the previous 22. I suggest to the hon. member for Villeneuve that the reason he was able to get elected in 1962 was that we had then had four of those five years with a Tory government and had had unemployment and the discontent which it fed. I suggest that if there had been the kind of full employment that existed up until June of 1957 the hon. member for Villeneuve and his friends would not be here at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that they have cultivated misery and that that is their sole and whole stock in trade. Unfortunately and unhappily there has been misery for the last four and now nearly five years for them to cultivate, because of the failure of the government to keep the Canadian economy in a state which employs all our people.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You never had full employment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The figures have been put on the record many times and I am not going to put them on tonight, but I will use an illustration that I think is the best that can be used. In the last year that the country had a Liberal government a quarter of a million strangers came to live in Canada and all those who wanted jobs found jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Also, all young Canadians who wanted jobs in that year found jobs too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, hon. gentlemen do not want to let me speak.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You can speak all you like. You are saying nothing at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are seeking to shout me down-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Speak all you want. You are not saying very much anyway.
National Economic Development Board


John Whitney Pickersgill: -because they do not like to hear the truth.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: More people are working than ever before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I do not think they will find me as easy to discourage as they found their leader was recently. I was saying, sir, when I was interrupted by the whip, whose function is something other than to create a disturbance in the house, that in the last year we had a Liberal government this country was able to absorb a quarter of a million immigrants-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and in addition all our young people were able to find employment. In 1956 and 1957 no one in this country had to look long for a job.


An hon. Member:: Why did they kick you out?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Somebody said, "why did they kick you out". I will tell the hon. gentleman precisely, because we had been there for 22 years-


Rémi Paul: Order. I am very interested in the remarks of the hon. member but I would suggest to him that they must have relevancy to the bill. I am sure the hon. member will try to bring his remarks back to the bill we are discussing because at the present time he is very far from the subject of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am dealing precisely and explicitly with the remarks made by the hon. member for Villeneuve and I claim the same right to speak as the hon. member for Villeneuve, notwithstanding the fact that, unlike the hon. member, I am no friend of the government.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We choose our friends.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Villeneuve would deny us the right to speak because conditions, he said-he was allowed to say this and was not interrupted by the Chair-were just as bad-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This is very low of you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -circumstances were just as bad when we were in office as they are now. If he was permitted to say that I suggest, sir, that you would not wish, because you have always been fair in the Chair, to deny me the right to reply, and that is all I am doing.
I repeat that the difference is very plain. I will tell hon. gentlemen why it was. Just
3194	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board a few minutes ago the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway commended the late Mr. C. D. Howe for the planning he did for Canada during the war. He could just as well have gone on to commend Mr. Howe and his colleagues, and I was not one of them, for the planning that they did at the end of the war. The white paper on unemployment forecast policies, maintained for 12 years, from 1945 to 1957, resulting in the highest level of employment that we have ever known in Canada. This enabled the population of this country to rise more rapidly than it had ever risen before at any stage in our history. It enabled us to open our doors to millions of immigrants who were able to come here and make their living.
What has happened in the last two years in connection with immigration? More Canadians have left Canada, I am unhappy to say but it is true, to find jobs in other countries than strangers have come to Canada looking for work. This is the difference. I can tell the hon. gentleman who talks about "le pou-voir d'achat" that we would have no trouble in maintaining "le pouvoir d'achat" if we had our people working and earning wages. This is the way to have purchasing power, to keep your people working and earning wages.
This, I may say, was the policy that was laid down at the end of the war by the Mackenzie King government of that day. This was the policy that was followed for 12 years, and for 12 years we had full employment in this country. For the last five years the average unemployment, one month with another, has been over 400,000.
Now, that is the difference. Those are the facts and they have no relation to the fictions to which we are treated from time to time by the hon. member for Villeneuve and those who live in the world of fantasy which that hon. gentleman has created. It seems to me, sir, that it is about time we stopped talking a lot of nonsense-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said I thought it was time we stopped talking a lot of nonsense about-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I repeat that I will not be discouraged as easily as the hon. gentlemen's leader was the other day, no matter how much disturbance they choose to create. It is time we stopped talking, and listening to, a lot of nonsense about-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -some magical formula which will solve all our problems without any kind of planning or any kind of organization, 

which the hon. gentlemen in the Social Credit group seem to think they have discovered. As a matter of fact, as far as I can discover, all they have discovered is a way in which to keep in office a government which only 37 per cent of the voters wanted in office.
I suggest, sir, that it is, and it always has been, difficult ever since 1867 to maintain a viable, dynamic, growing economy in this country. It has always required planning. It has never resulted from the operation of simple laissez faire; never at any time, and whenever any attempt has been made to leave it to the so-called natural forces, the economy has flagged. So far as I can see, that has been true in the nineteenth century and in the twentieth century as well. It is true, and we have never pretended to the contrary, that plans were made at the end of the war. Plans were made for the transformation of the Canadian economy from a wartime to a peacetime basis. We had a formidable task at that time. There were one million men and women under arms and there were another million working in munitions plants. Hon. gentlemen will recall, some who have been here a long time like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that he and his friends expected a depression at that time. I suggest that one of the principal reasons there was not a depression was precisely because there was intelligent, broad planning of the kind that was carried on at that time by the government of that day.
This is precisely what this country needs now, and it is precisely what we recommended in the last election campaign. I could read from the program that we put forward. I remember the scorn that was poured upon these proposals of ours, particularly by the Minister of Labour. We have had these statements brought up before in this debate, and I am not going to repeat them. The minister will recall, himself, how he dismissed all this planning. Then, we remember the Prime Minister, in one of those airy-fairy speeches of his-you know, with that extraordinary comprehension of the economy which he has-talking about the great struggle being a struggle between free enterprise and socialism. This, of course, is a lot of nineteenth century nonsense that no one living in the twentieth century-I was almost going to say living in the real world-would be talking about now.


Mr. Mariineau:: A debt free money world.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, the hon. gentleman can go over and chat with his friends about that. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys would not even be in the government if it was not for the debt free boys keeping him there.

If I may come back to my point, it is a very simple one. We do need planning. This bill, and any blueprint the government has so far given for this council, I suggest is a sham.
I suggest the government has no intention of having this board work. They feel that, as a result of the last election and the 37 per cent of the votes they got for their method of running the economy-


Mr. Bigg:: How many did you get?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We got 37 per cent as well, and a little bit more. As the Leader of the Opposition said, in the last election the people did not decide what government they wanted. They gave an emphatic verdict on what they did not want. I can also say that if hon. gentlemen opposite will give the people a chance it won't take them long to decide what they do want now, after the exhibition we have had for the last nine months.
In so far as this bill is concerned, I say it is difficult to believe a government containing the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, considering the views they expressed about any form of planning before the last election, would have any serious intention of allowing this board to work. I do not believe there has been any genuine conversion of these people. It is just another gimmick, another Diefenbaker gimmick, to try to fool the people once more. I do not think, sir, it is going to work.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak on the first clause until all hon. members had spoken, but having listened to the political claptrap to which we have been exposed for the last 15 minutes I think I should say something at this time.
My only regret is that all the people of Canada could not have been sitting in the galleries here tonight. They would have witnessed a spectacle of political irresponsibility the like of which this parliament has not seen for many many months.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the minister a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have disagreement with my friends in the far corner of the house with respect to their ideas of planning, but they have contributed an intelligent discussion with respect to planning from their own point of view, and I respect them for it. Indeed the great majority of hon. members of the house have done likewise. The hon. member for Vancouver South tonight gave us a contribution with respect to problems affecting his province, problems which this board might be asked to deal with, but here we have just been exposed to a political
National Economic Development Board diatribe the like of which you would not hear in the backwoods of any constituency in any place in Canada, and here we are dealing with a matter of importance. We are dealing with a matter which all hon. members have said they agree on and think is necessary. They agree it is something with which we have to deal, and yet we have to indulge in a partisan diatribe such as transpired tonight.
All it goes to prove is that there is a split in the Liberal party between those who want to play partisan politics come hell or high water and those who are prepared to give us a chance to go ahead with the country's business, and I think my friend from Bonavista-Twillingate is certainly the leader of that rebel group.
When he was speaking I was fearful of the fact that he might have a stroke. I am glad he has his doctor in attendance here because if he indulged for very long in pyrotechnics such as tonight we would have a casualty on our hands and that, from a personal standpoint, I would regret very much.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has made a dastardly attack on my health. I assure you, sir, my health is excellent. I have never been in better health. In fact I would challenge the Prime Minister to push-ups any time.


Mr. Starr:: Your arms are not long enough to get you off the floor.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, if I were as partisan minded as my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate I would regret that my diagnosis had been wrong, but as a personal friend I am glad to know his physical strength is much greater than his mental stability.
This debate has gone on for some considerable time and as I said, on the whole- and I emphasize on the whole with one or two noticeable exceptions, some of which we have seen tonight-it has been orderly and constructive. I appreciate the manner in which hon. members from all parties participated, despite the fact that we have varying points of view in looking upon the problem. Like everyone else, everyone is for virtue and everyone is against sin, but when it comes to describe what is virtue and what is sin sometimes there are differences of opinion.
Sometimes we have hon. members saying we should have planning of a mandatory nature, and that term is more than suggestive and more than indicative; but our friends in the New Democratic party have expressed that point of view, have expressed it forcefully, and from their own point of view have
3196	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board expressed it very well. It will not surprise them at all when I tell them I disagree with the point of view they express because it is not reconcilable with a free economy, and so far as the government is concerned we believe in that system despite the fact that in historical connotations and in our growth there have been some limitations on the development of the nation in a free enterprise system.
Some hon. members have said that the board is inadequate. There have been suggestions that the board is going to consist of only one man. Other inferences have been drawn, I think honestly drawn, and as we go on to deal with the clauses I shall deal with them in greater length.
The chairman is to be a full time chairman and a varying number has been set for the members. They are not frozen into a compact group. In fact there is a certain amount of elasticity whereby within this number we can have a board representative of industry, agriculture and all the various groups in this great nation. It is true membership is of a voluntary nature. Members will be paid their expenses. They will not be paid salaries per se; but, Mr. Chairman, you will notice that under clause 16 the board may appoint such officers as it requires and these will not be employed through the civil service commission. They will be appointed by the board and they will be paid such salaries as the board shall determine.
There is no question as to why that provision has been included. I may say I expect to be here when this bill is implemented, and if this provision carries I hope we will attract to the board the very best brains obtainable in Canada for its service, regardless of politics and regardless of anything else. With all due respect I might as well face this problem frankly. If we limit this board to retaining employees under the civil service commission then I point out that the statutory salaries which are fixed will apply and the statutory competitions must be held.
I have had something to do with the drafting of this bill and I resent any inferences to gray eminences. Any gray eminence who exists, when he found out about this board he found out about it from me. That is the first he heard about it and I am determined, so long as I am Minister of Finance and so long as I have responsibility for handling this bill, or act when it becomes statutory legislation, that we will have a group of employees, servants-call them what you will-associated with the board-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Bureaucrats.


George Clyde Nowlan: They will not be bureaucrats, I can assure you on that. We inherited a lot of bureaucrats and bureaucrats have their place, and I must say they are right there.
Somebody said "You have enough men now to advise you." That is true in the civil service. We have, I suggest, as able a group of men and women in the upper echelons of the civil service as any country in the world, and I pay tribute to them; but they are very, very limited in number and the problems are very, very many. Virtually all of them in the civil service are saddled with responsibilities of administration, departmental administration and day to day problems. They can deal with those day to day problems and they deal with them effectively, certainly to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of my colleagues. Though we all make mistakes, on the whole they deal with their work reasonably well; but when it comes to the long term problems they just have not the time to give their attention to those problems. Certainly hon. gentlemen opposite who have experience in administration know the problems they are confronted with from day to day. Our senior civil servants are not in the position to deal with these long range problems as they should. When some of us-shall I say, "when I" looked over the situation and I realized the long term problems that had to be solved, and I realized the problem of the balance of payments, I realized that we had to have a group associated with this government; not, as the hon. member for Davenport said the other night, a wing or part of the Department of Finance. It will not be a part of the Department of Finance. It will be an independent board entirely, reporting to the Minister of Finance, whoever he happens to be at the moment, but it will be no more a part of the Department of Finance than is the tariff board or any similar body. It will be an independent board to which we hope to invite in a voluntary capacity the leaders of business, agriculture and labour, with all the groups in this country sitting around. Somebody said it would be a cocktail party. That was said by my genial friend down to the right, with his brilliant tongue but not always the logical reasoning that one would expect from him. He is the one who referred to this board as being a cocktail party. I am told, without any great knowledge of it, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes good things emanate even from cocktail parties. But certainly it is not a cocktail party that is going to determine the work of this board. There will be groups associated with it comprising, I hope-as I have said-the very best brains this country can produce, men and women in economics and finance and experienced in the various problems with which we are confronted. We are also asking the universities to help. We are asking them

to solve certain problems by delegating to them, or some industrial research group, certain problems.
There are no other problems, Mr. Chairman. This country and this parliament needs the support of all parties here to make sure that the type of men and women we invite to come to this board, the type of men and women the board after it is appointed will retain and ask to take employment here, will be of the calibre that the nation needs. In the face of this we have picayune, partisan criticism such as has emanated from two or three speeches, and only two or three, to the effect that it is going to be very difficult to get the men and women that I hope will be attracted to this board and who I believe can be attracted to the board if this parliament deals with the bill as I suggested, with all respect, it should be dealt with.
I am not going to go into all the criticisms which have been uttered by various hon. members during the debate. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I think most of them have been on a very high level. One could spend a great deal of time dealing with them, but I would hope this committee could see its way clear at least to pass clause 1 this evening in order to get off the first clause, and then we will deal with the details of the other clauses as time goes on.
I have notes of all the comments of every hon. member except those who have spoken this evening. I did not have the time to make notes of what was said in those speeches this evening. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano said that the board should report to a committee of three ministers. I do not think anyone expects a board to report to a group of ministers. It must report to somebody who is responsible for it, and there certainly is no difficulty in the world about setting up-as my hon. friend for Bonavista-Twillingate and others who have been in government know-a committee of the ministry to deal with specific problems as they develop.
The hon. member for Red Deer made an address earlier in the debate, I think when we were at the resolution stage, in which he suggested that a great deal of this work should have been delegated to the productivity council, and we did not need this board at all. That is an argument which he advanced and I think there are others who perhaps share his view. I would point out to the hon. member that the United Kingdom has had a productivity council for many years and it has done very, very good work, as has the productivity council in this country. But in the United Kingdom two years ago they also set up what is popularly called Neddy,
National Economic Development Board the national economic development-I do not know what that last initial stands for-


An hon. Member:: "Council".


George Clyde Nowlan: -but it is roughly parallel to the national economic development board which we are now setting up.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, might I rise on a point of order. I would correct the Minister of Finance when he says that I suggested the productivity council should take over the work of this proposed economic development board. That is not what I said. I said the two bodies should be co-ordinated together and the productivity council should be enlarged, so that the full scope and purpose laid down for this board could be fulfilled.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, Mr. Chairman, east is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet. Apparently the hon. member for Red Deer wants to incorporate the two groups. We are following the example set by the United Kingdom in setting up a national economic development board which will work very, very closely in co-operation with the productivity council. A great deal has been said with respect to planning. Some of it has been said by our friends in the New Democratic party. My hon. friend from Essex East and others have referred to the great development that has taken place in western Europe. They referred to France as an example, Sweden and other countries. Certainly we in this country who study these matters would be the first to admit that they have made tremendous advances and tremendous development has taken place. However, I would suggest that this committee must not overlook the constitutional problems with which we are faced; the fact that this is a federal state, that we have provinces and are not a unitary state, that property and civil rights impinge upon trade and commerce and there are always constitutional problems which do not apply to unitary states such as -I am not sure of the constitutional developments of all the European countries and I do not want to be caught out in this connection, but I would suggest France, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Also, we certainly have not the government control or the intervention of the state in this country; and, with all due respect to my hon. friends in the far corner, I do not expect we will have such control for some time such as there is in France, Sweden and other European countries.
We are developing here a pattern which is somewhat different from that which is applied in western Europe. I think it is closely analogous to that which applies in the United
3198	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board Kingdom and it is one which I think will result in a great deal of development and planning in this country. It is easy to say, "Ah, it is only a shell, only an empty gesture. It does not mean anything at all". Those comments can be made and have been made to some extent during this debate. I disagree with them positively and absolutely. As I said earlier, I know what is the concept of planning, not the mandatory planning that some would have, but the long range planning which I and my colleagues had in mind when we asked this parliament to set up this board. It is far from perfect. No organization can be perfect and no organization will be perfect. It is going to face difficulties, of course. There are many problems which we have to face. There are problems such as the hon. member for Vancouver South referred to this evening. There is this problem, for instance. My hon. friend from Vancouver South said, "Well, after all President Kennedy now has his long term trading bill. Why do you not approach him and enter trade negotiations? Why do you not arrange for reciprocal trade or break down the barriers between our country and the United States?" That, of course, is an argument which has been advanced before and it is one worthy of comment. But certainly President Kennedy made it abundantly clear, I hope, that any concessions that he makes so far as tariffs are concerned are going to be on the most favoured nation basis, and when he makes reductions they are going to apply to all the nations that come into the most favoured nation tariffs. Much as we have pride in Canada and admire our friends in the United States, I would think that if the hon. member for Vancouver South were in charge of tariff negotiations for the United States he might hesitate in making too many concessions to Canada. I know they would apply to the whole world, but they still have to trade and negotiate with the United Kingdom. These matters however to a large extent depend upon a certain gentleman across the channel, as to whether the United Kingdom enters the common market and whether they deal with the United Kingdom or the common market countries generally. There are, of course, problems confronting us, and that is one. We have the balance of payments situation. We have the tariff negotiations. We have all these things to which hon. members have referred. I suggest that having had a debate which has gone on, now, for some days-and I am glad it has, because it has been, as I said, a very good debate-perhaps we could proceed. I understand there are to be some suggestions made, some amendments which hon. members would like to move. I should like to hear these proposals and give careful consideration to them.


There is, on our part, no fixation with regard to this measure. There is nothing in this on which we stand or fall, come what may. It is a bill which has been drafted and to which consideration has been given by many people.
I am prepared to listen to any argument which may be put forward from time to time and, if I can see my way clear, to accept it if it does not involve the principle upon which the bill is based. I know of one proposal which is coming forward. It is a proposal I should like to debate strongly, because I think the type of man we should bring in has to be assured of relative continuity of employment, and this assurance cannot be given if he is only appointed for a short term. But that is another matter, and, as I say, I hope the committee can see its way to make progress before it rises at ten o'clock.
We read in the papers from time to time that this parliament may not be here for very long-that there may be an election. There are various predictions made which, perhaps, are products of the imagination. Nevertheless, these are considerations which we should have in mind. Therefore I should like to see this clause passed so that we may go on tomorrow and make further progress. So, if in its wisdom parliament decides that there should be other issues resolved in another form, we should at least have this bill through and begin acquiring the personnel to man the board. I can assure this committee that when the announcement of the appointment is made by this government we shall hear from all sides that we have chosen wisely and well. I am sure that this would also be true if another government were making the appointment. Unless such a choice can be made, a choice will not be made. That is why I should like to have this clause agreed to, and deal with it.


Mr. Teillet:: I had hoped that my remarks, which will not be unduly extended, would have been delivered some time before this. However, even though they follow the lengthy observations which we have just heard from the minister, I hope I can conclude before ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Well, hon. gentlemen opposite have treated me this way since I came here. I have no complaints, but they must accept the same thing in return. One point which arises out of the minister's remarks is this -and I have no doubt he meant what he said when he told the committee he was prepared to accept suggestions made to him. If that should be the case, I think the government might well consider the appointment of a minister for economic planning. I would

National Economic Development Board
certainly have no objection to such a move.
The second comment I wish to make-and this, again, arises from the minister's observations-is that the theory of the Conservative party's divine right not to be criticized is not accepted by this side of the house. Moreover, the theory they are trying to spread throughout this country, that any criticism of the Conservative government-


William Heward Grafftey: You are just boycotting the nation's business.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The usual remarks from the other side. I was insolently spoken to by the Prime Minister when I first came into this house and I do not expect anything less from his henchmen. However, I do have one idea I want to discuss and I insist I do so very seriously. In the bill we find under duties and powers a clause which reads:
The achievement of the highest possible level of efficient production and employment so as to ensure the raising of standards of living in all parts of Canada.
That phrase "in all parts of Canada" is the matter I propose to deal with this evening.
I could preface these remarks in no better terms than those used by my colleague from Toronto Davenport on November 29 as reported in Hansard on page 2147.
These were the third and fourth points he made.
Third, this council should be concerned not only with analysing economic trends; it should also have as one of its main functions responsibility for working out solutions to our basic problems in practical terms. This means that the council should translate a good rate of economic growth into targets for each of the principal industries of the country; and in doing this it would be necessary to take into account regional problems and regional points of view. Fourth, the council should point the fact out to the government if it appears that any of the government's policies are in conflict with one another, as recently they have so often been, and it should be its responsibility to suggest how these conflicts might be reconciled.


Mr. McGrath:: Why not table it as read?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: If hon. gentlemen opposite want to interrupt, my remarks will take that much more time. It is entirely up to them. I intend to have my say whether they like it or not.
I want to develop that idea a little further. In a country such as ours, national goals should not be set without due regard for the development of each region in Canada. This means, in effect, that planning will and must require a regional as well as a national approach. If we look at our geographical areas and go back to our historical methods we shall see clearly the great need of the regional approach. Our national concerns, by which I mean our business enterprises, our national business organizations, whether they be public or private, may at times make decisions
which in their minds appear to be sound economics. But too often these decisions, even when they are correct in a narrow economic sense for a particular industry, result in a harmful dislocation in a particular region. In the end this can only work to the detriment of the national interest. The best example, of course, is our national communication system but there are other industries which have advanced the argument of economics as justification for concentrating in. one area or another. In many cases it is doubtful if there really was justification for this concentration. The Trans-Canada Air Lines case is one instance of this. The transfer from east to west was based on the advantages of more economic operation, we are told. This is at least questionable in this particular case if all facts are taken into consideration-the piecemeal moves, the additional competition of air lines, the day to day decisions taken without regard for over-all effect. When all these things are taken into consideration it is doubtful if the regional development or, indeed, the national interest, have been well served by this move. Many of us contend they have not. A shift seems to have taken place from decentralization in recent times. I cannot express it better than did my colleague from Toronto Davenport whom I quoted earlier.
As far as our western problems are concerned, we have reached a stage where much thought and study is required. Matters have reached a point at which a complete re-examination of our financial and economic position within confederation is needed. The application of the Rowell-Sirois commission recommendations served well in their time. But when it came to the time where adjustments were required the present government saw fit simply to scrap them. This needs to be taken up again. Such a council as proposed here should be able to work with such other bodies as are established from time to time for the purpose of re-examining our constitutional or other relationships. This is not said lightly. We have had dislocations in the past and we may well have them again. Western Canada cannot long continue to expend its efforts to develop its industries only to find that almost as soon as they are developed and established they are whisked from under their nose for establishment elsewhere. Our trade and economic structures have long been designed to work in favour of the more industrialized centres. This is the kind of problem, among others, which a council of this nature should be designed to solve.
Industrial development, economic growth and expanding trade should be viewed and
3200	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board encouraged so as to provide benefit to all regions of our country. If our national life is to be maintained in a healthy, vigorous condition we must make sure that our maritime as well as our prairie provinces share in our objective of an ever-rising standard of living, and I suggest the minister has a great deal of knowledge of that question.
The exploitation of the tremendous wealth of our western provinces is not developing at a pace consistent with our capabilities because we are handicapped in so many ways. Population is one, the tendency to centralization of many of our major industries, both private and public, is another. This requires the setting of regional as well as national goals, and national goals should be adjusted to benefit regional development. The establishment of large concerns in the industrial east, often behind tariff protection, should not be permitted adversely to affect regional industries, in some cases even to destroy them. This has too often been the case. We are not here pleading for special privileges but only for an opportunity to develop at the same rate as the country as a whole.
A national economic development board, with this kind of objective and with the means at its disposal to plan, to analyse and to recommend forcibly, can and should be an instrument for a really great step forward and for sustained progress in our economic life.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. member identify what he is reading from?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I am reading from notes. Again, 1 do expect these interruptions, but I do not take exception to them. I am reading rapidly from my notes, because, as I said earlier, the minister's reply delayed me and I want to get through before ten o'clock. But this does mean, particularly in the public sector of the economy, but also to some measure in all major industry, that the pure economic fact is not the dominant objective; the over-all objective must be the national interest.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to take another minute or two to deal with the objections and cat-calls from the other side. I have attempted here to deal with this matter very seriously, because I believe that this suggestion is one which cannot be overstated. This matter of regional development does not seem to suit hon. gentlemen opposite, who must carry on in their normal manner, which means that the sacred Conservative party must not be criticized, and that any new member coming into this house must be insulted. I take this and accept it. But I would suggest to them, however, that when we on this side get on our feet they must be prepared to accept


criticism whether they like it or not. I do want to put that to you, Mr. Chairman. This is not the last time, either in this parliament or in the next, which may not be too long off, when you will hear me being very critical of the attitude not only of the treasury benches but also of some of the backbenchers on the other side of this house.
(Translation):


Mr. Lamoureux:: Mr. Chairman, I hope the house will allow me to make a few brief remarks on the bill before us.
In the speech from the throne at the opening of parliament, we had the privilege of learning that the government was committed to bring before the house a program of legislation meant in part to stimulate the Canadian economy and to maintain a high level of employment.
The national economic development board, and this will come as a surprise to many, since the Conservative party have traditionally held that the idea of a planned economy was dangerous.
During the course of this debate, we have been reminded of the heated opposition raised by the supporters of this government when a similar bill was submitted to the house some years ago. Such a change of heart is not easily explained. There can be only one conclusion and it is that the government, having failed to solve Canada's economic problems through policies originating from within, must now rely on a solution suggested by the Liberal opposition. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I would not like to give the impression that I find fault with a government borrowing suggestions from other political parties for its legislation if they can be a real contribution to the welfare of the nation. If, after opposing a project because it was based on planning, the government decides today to reverse its policy and to sponsor an absolutely similar project, we must welcome that.
In fact, I find a little ridiculous the prudish reserve with which some people will approach the word or the idea of planning. In a country such as ours, where the government interferes in almost all fields of national activities, where almost one third of all revenues are handed back to the government in the form of taxes, where the government has taken under its control a large part of the production and consumption system, how could it be possible to solve the inevitable

problems of such a complex economy without planning through state intervention?
If a charge is to be laid against the government, it is for not having set up this development board a long time ago. It is obvious that in order to ensure the rational and fair development of the whole country, guidance must come from the central authority.
One of the most loathesome aspects of the present unemployment crisis in Canada is the fact that this social evil seriously affects some regions of the country, whereas in others there is almost full employment and a measure of prosperity. That is where guided development could help the regions hardest hit by unemployment and business stagnation. (Text):
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.


Rémi Paul: Order. It being ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 stands.
Progress reported.
Business of the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I wonder whether the house leader could give us an indication of what business the government will be bringing forward for the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The business for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will be the continuation of the program which I announced on Friday night, namely this bill, followed by the Freight Rates Reduction Act measure, followed by the national productivity council.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether he could give us an assurance that during the course of the week the external affairs estimates would be called, so that we can debate the repudiation by the Minister of National Defence of the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking for an assurance about the spending program of this government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; no comments.
It being two minutes after ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Tuesday, January 29, 1963