1963-01-22

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members may have noted that they have not yet received their copies of Hansard which should have been delivered this morning. They will be delivered later this afternoon. However, I might point out that Hansard for yesterday is more than twice its normal length as a result of the accumulation of answers to questions and of certain statements which were printed as appendices.
In connection with answers appearing in Hansard, it has been drawn to our attention that yesterday there was one answer printed which covered almost 12 pages, set up in special type. I, of course, am not in a position to judge the length of answers at the time they are handed in, but I think it would be good if those persons who are charged with filing answers to questions would watch this situation, because a lengthy answer of the type to which I have referred could quite easily be put down as an order for return tabled immediately. I think it would help all concerned if answers to questions to appear in Hansard in the normal course of events were reasonably brief.



VACANCY

Mr. Harry C. Harley (Hallon):: Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand two orders in council appointing Hon. William Earl Rowe to be lieutenant governor of Ontario. I hereby give notice, pursuant to section 10 of the House of Commons Act, that a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of Commons for the electoral district of Dufferin-Simcoe, by reason of the said appointment of the member therefor.



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

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Yesterday in answer to the hon. member for Laurier I said I would be making a statement today regarding the convening of a dominion-provincial conference. I want to
point out that I am not yet ready to make that statement, although I did say yesterday I would make it. As soon as I am ready I will make it, and the hon. gentleman and members of the house will be notified in advance.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: It will be awaited with interest.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I wish to table the bilingual texts of the instruments adopted at the 46th session of the international labour conference held in Geneva, Switzerland, in June 1962.
The Canadian delegation, consisting of government, employer and worker representatives, was headed by the deputy minister of labour. The conference debated at some length the report of the director general of the I.L.C. which was centred on this occasion mainly on the subject of older people in work and retirement. Among numerous resolutions, one was proposed by Canada. This dealt with measures to strengthen research in the labour field both nationally and internationally, and was adopted unanimously by the conference.
The four instruments tabled herewith are convention 117 on basic aims and standards of social policy; convention 118 on equality of treatment of nationals and non-nationals in the field of social security; recommendation 116 on reduction of hours of work, and recommendation 117 on vocational training.
An attached letter of October 24, 1962, states that the Minister of Justice is of the opinion that the subject matter of each of these instruments is partially within federal legislative jurisdiction and partially within provincial legislative jurisdiction. According to the usual procedure I am asking my colleague the Secretary of State to send a set of these instruments, together with the justice opinion, to the lieutenant governor of each province, with the request that they be placed before the competent legislative authority in the province for consideration. At the federal level, the Department of Labour will study the subject matter of each instrument in consultation with other departments concerned and will consider what further steps are feasible in this connection.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Labour seeks leave to table the documents to which he
referred in his statement. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of his statement to the house yesterday regarding the order of business for the rest of the week. Having regard to that statement and also to certain statements we on this side have received from other government sources which do not seem to be completely in harmony with what the Prime Minister said yesterday, may I ask him whether he will confirm today that the external affairs estimates will be called on Thursday to permit of a debate on foreign affairs and defence on that and subsequent days?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no confirmation required. That is what I said.



INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST FOR INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General spoke to me some time ago with respect to the necessity of augmenting his staff, and suggested that it was a matter with which the Minister of Finance should deal by virtue of a certain section of the act. After consultation with the civil service commission it was decided that the matter should be left with the commission for the time being. The civil service commission is, I believe, dealing with the matter; and, of course, this question comes under the aegis of my hon. friend the Secretary of State, and any questions on that score should be referred to him.']
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, in view of the fact that yesterday he gave us to understand that he would be asking for interim supply some time this week. In the light of the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, when now does he propose to ask for interim supply?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to give a definite date when I will be asking for interim supply. However, it will not be this week. I would suspect that it will be some time next week at a convenient date, after discussion with the house leaders and the government.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether the minister could inform the house when farmers may expect an interim or final payment on the 1961-62 wheat crop.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I had conversations with the chief commissioner of the wheat board on this subject last week, and I expect that he will be writing a letter to the government in the next few days suggesting when the pool be closed and when the payments will be made.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter L. Gordon (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance relating to the Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31, 1962. Has any action been taken to provide the Auditor General with the staff he requires in order to carry out his responsibilities to parliament?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General spoke to me some time ago with respect to the necessity of augmenting his staff, and suggested that it was a matter with which the Minister of Finance should deal by virtue of a certain section of the act. After consultation with the civil service commission it was decided that the matter should be left with the commission for the time being. The civil service commission is, I believe, dealing with the matter; and, of course, this question comes under the aegis of my hon. friend the Secretary of State, and any questions on that score should be referred to him.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I understand that the proposed conference between the federal government and the governments of the three prairie provinces has been postponed. May I ask the Prime Minister whether any date has been set for a meeting with the prairie provinces on the question of railway abandonment?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the course of the statement I made I referred to the fact that the meeting would be held on the 28th; next Monday, in any event. The meeting will be convened in Ottawa with the

premiers or representatives of the three western provinces in order to have presented to the government the views of the governments of those provinces in respect of the question of abandonment, and the like. So far I have had an acceptance from two of the premiers; the third has not as yet replied whether or not that date will be satisfactory.


Mr, Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: A supplementary question. I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether he has had a communication from certain organizations requesting that legislation which may be introduced in the house this session on this subject be deferred until after the scheduled February 5 meeting with the cabinet?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I read some observations of the hon. gentleman with regard to the dictatorial attitude of the government in this regard during his absence from the house. Yesterday, however, I referred to the fact that we had been in communication with the premiers of the provinces and had advised them that the legislation would not be introduced until they had had an opportunity of presenting their views.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question. Can the Prime Minister say whether this statement also applies to the Saskatchewan farmers' union and the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association in relation to their February 5 meeting with the cabinet?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go any further than I have gone in this regard. The premiers of the provinces will be here. I have always found that they fairly well represent the views of their respective provinces.



FINANCE


[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 Trade and Commerce. In view of his recent statement that the surcharges on imported goods would be removed very soon, and in view of the financial hardship being inflicted on many retailers in Canada because of this uncertainty, can he explain to the house or define the meaning of the words "very soon"?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the word "soon" is a relative term.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENT BY CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of conflicting reports regarding payment for our wheat under the Chinese wheat agreement, can he tell us whether the Chinese are still honouring their obligations up to the present time?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was good enough to send me a copy of his question. It just arrived after I came into the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I shall have to tell the hon. member that I will take this question as notice and will inquire from the wheat board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to explain to hon. members that I felt that this question did not have urgency of immediate reply but that it was on the same subject and about in the same vein as the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and the two in a way balanced out.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Before he leaves his exalted position in the chamber would he be prepared to make a detailed statement on the Columbia river treaty, such as those he has been making on the hustings out in British Columbia?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time I should be very pleased to discuss the Columbia river treaty in the House of Commons.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have a supplementary question. Does the minister not believe that the appropriate time is now, before he leaves this chamber?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the supplementary question is more a commentary on the answer that was given.

Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



FORT ST. JOHN, B.C.-REPORTED FAILURE TO REINSTATE EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the Postmaster General received complaints recently with regard to the failure of the department to reinstate a number of post office employees at Fort St. John, British Columbia? If so, what action does the minister propose to take?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, on reflection I think I should correct the answer I gave the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, because it now seems to me I did receive some representations, but they were so long ago I had forgotten about them and no action is contemplated.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister be good enough to indicate to the house whether the government has received any requests for an increase in Canada's contribution to the Colombo plan?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a very few letters on this point, but nothing of any great significance.



NUCLEAR TESTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has anything to add to what he has already said outside of the house with regard to the nuclear test discussions in Washington.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Essex East had been here yesterday he would have known I made my statement not outside the house but right here in the Commons chamber.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am surprised that my hon. friend takes offence, particularly with me. May I ask him the question again,


based not on what he said in the house but what he said last night over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television facilities. Has he anything to add to that statement?


Howard Charles Green: There is nothing to add to what I said in the house yesterday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do I understand, then, that the position of the Canadian government is that if the United States and the Soviet union cannot agree on conditions for the cessation of tests, the government of Canada feels that there should be no tests, whether or not such an agreement is arrived at?


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the hon. member either did not hear or did not understand what he is supposed to have heard last night.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. Rideout (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. What action does the minister plan in order to have the customs office opened on a 24 hour basis on Roosevelt memorial bridge at Campobello?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that question would be better on the order paper.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norfh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister refused to meet a delegation representing the Canadian association of university teachers to discuss certain activities of the R.C.M.P.?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Juslice):: No, sir.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question. Could the minister indicate when he will meet the delegation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, sir.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to

the Minister of Labour. Did the minister receive representations from the provinces concerning the federal-provincial technical and vocational training act and is the minister in a position to state his reply or that of the government to that brief?


Michael Starr: The answer to the first part of the question is yes; to the second part, no.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. P. Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was the government's decision to purchase $700 million worth of nuclear vehicles from the United States "made in Canada"?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Lamoureux (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture is now prepared to reply to the question I asked yesterday regarding maintenance of the records of production services branch.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have made inquiries of the department, and I am assured there are no plans to curtail or abolish the record of performance program for dairy cattle. The ability to accept new herds under the program is always limited by the availability of staff at a given period.



TREE FARMING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and Forestry, notice of which has been sent to him. Can the minister inform the house whether, under the new agricultural rehabilitation act, assistance is provided for tree farming?


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of Forestry):: I am very glad to give to the hon. gentleman all the information I can. The answer, in general terms, is yes. Of course the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act contemplates that land use is subject to an examination of the land itself to determine the use to which it can best be put. However, on that basis the answer is yes.
Inquiries of the Ministry OLD AGE PENSIONS



INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION UNDER PROPOSED B.N.A. ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the government considering making known to the provinces the nature of the legislation that it would propose under the suggested amendment to the British North America Act respecting old age pensions in order to get consent from the provinces for making that amendment?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the request to the provinces was for their consent to permit the introduction of an amendment which would assure that the type of pensions we have in mind, contributory pensions with survivor benefits, might be implemented by legislation in parliament. My reading in regard to those things that have taken place in the past has been that that has not been the custom. While I am on my feet may I say that the statements in the press today that we intend to disregard the constitution in any way in connecion with this amendment have no foundation whatsoever.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister indicate, in view of this impasse, what action will be taken at this session with regard to an increase in the amount of the old age pension?


John George Diefenbaker: I have already pointed out that the attitude of this government is at all times to strictly respect the constitution. Any suggestion that we do anything in the nature of a short-cut is not a course which will be followed. We have no power whatever to secure the consent of the provinces to the legislation that we have in mind based upon an amendment to the constitution. I only hope that good sense will prevail and the provinces will consent to such an amendment so as to ensure that legislation of the kind contemplated by this government, and asked for by the people of Canada, can be brought into being.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am sure the Prime Minister either must have misunderstood my supplementary question or perhaps did not hear it. My supplementary question did not relate to what he would do about an amendment to the British North America Act. My question was, what would he do, in view of this impasse, about having an increase made at this session in the amount of the old age pension, a totally different question.
2984	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as increases in old age pensions and the like are concerned, that is a matter of government policy, and it is different from the question of contributory old age pensions.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister consider asking for a meeting of the industrial relations committee in order that it might investigate the serious charges concerning the statistics of the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission contained in the current issue of Maclean's magazine?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have read that article in the current issue of Maclean's magazine, but it was not my impression that it referred to the subject the hon. member is bringing to my attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest you read it again.



NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nowlan for the second reading of Bill No. C-87, to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board.
Mr. John R. Maiheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, at the evening adjournment last night I had mentioned the importance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it would be helpful to the hon. member if those members who wish to leave the chamber would do so expeditiously and quietly so that he can complete his remarks.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, last evening I was suggesting that one of the important services of the national economic development board would be to assist Canada to find its way into an integration with its Atlantic allies under the ideas suggested in the second clause of the NATO treaty. This was something very important to my leader. It is something that was very important to Jean Monnet, architect of the common market, who feels that there is nothing more important now than the movement toward an


Atlantic community in which common institutions will be increasingly developed to meet any problems. Jean Monnet praises Britain joining the general movement toward a united Europe, something that even as we debate this matter today is in the shadow of doubt, perhaps, but nevertheless great things are happening in respect of Britain that we cannot fail to recognize.
Mr. Speaker, may I read one short paragraph from Jean Monnet's article published in The Rotarian of October, 1961. He says:
That we have begun to co-operate on these affairs at the Atlantic level is a great step forward. It is evident that we must soon go a good deal further toward an Atlantic community.
The creation of a united Europe brings this nearer by making it possible for America and Europe to act as partners on an equal footing.
The reason is not only to maximize the wealth of this Atlantic community itself. It is actually the preservation of the peace of all, and second to assure the generous contribution of this vitally important group of nations to the development of the underdeveloped countries. We find in Canada in this past year that an outstanding businessman such as William E. Williams, president of Procter & Gamble of Canada, recommends an economic union between Canada and the United States. Douglas W. Ambridge, president of Abitibi Power & Paper Co. Ltd., recommends a North American market involving Canada, the United States and Mexico, to serve as something of a magnet for the Latin American countries. Why? Because this is a clear step in the direction we must take toward forming some larger Atlantic integration.
We on this side of the house would have been very happy to have done this more directly with integration with Britain when the opportunity presented itself some years ago, but that opportunity was not seized and there must be other ways in which this great plan may still be realized.
We may ask is it possible to do such a thing with the United States. I will read to the house the words of President Kennedy in his July 4 message at Philadelphia. This time the president was not talking about George Washington or anything of that sort. He said:
I will say, here and now, on this day of Independence, that the United States will be ready for a declaration of interdependence-that we will be prepared to discuss with a united Europe the ways and means of forming a concrete Atlantic partnership.
It is not sufficient for the Prime Minister of Canada to nurse his wrath and prepare to gird his loins for a new campaign against the United States, against Britain or against anybody else. Surely our policy must be one of planning toward this larger world order

National Economic Development Board
which could prove so prosperous and so important to Canada. Planning is the key word here. Claude Jodoin, in his New Year's message to labour, said "planning, it seems, is no longer a bad word". Then he went on to say:
-but time is running out. While other countries have been moving ahead Canada has been standing still. We cannot afford to let another year go by without taking decisive action.
On the other side of the coin are these words to the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada. On June 18, 1962 Mr. Neil John McKinnon, speaking of the need for intelligent planning in a speech entitled "Planning and Performance", said this:
The free competitive system of individual enterprise cannot flourish without a nourishing environment which can only be created and maintained by intelligent planning of the business environment by government.
We must not be afraid of shibboleths and shiver at the word "planning". We accept that Bill No. C-87 is a planning bill. It is true that the word "planning" does not appear-as was mentioned-in it, but what is indicated, surely, is the need for indicative planning, planning that is going to get business, labour and agriculture working together toward new adjustments, greater harmony and greater growth. Surely what we in Canada are really striving for is a bold new economic consensus. We know that in the past we have had important royal commissions. We have had the Rowell-Sirois and the Gordon commissions with penetrating substantive studies of the Canadian economy which proved of great importance in solving some of the problems we have already faced. It is unfortunate that many of the recommendations of the Gordon commission were not implemented, and to some extent have been thwarted and frustrated in the past several years.
In any event we feel-and this was one of the many recommendations of the Gordon commission-that there must be a continuing study of economic. problems based on long range considerations. We heard engaging speeches last evening from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who took us on a tour of the north, and an address from the Associate Minister of National Defence on the glory of France and the glory of this administration. But there remain problems that cannot be solved unless they are faced, and faced frankly. Some of them are new. The first new problem is the fact that in the four years from 1958 to 1961 Canada averaged over 6i per cent of unemployment. Actually according to a minister of the Ontario government, Hon. Robert Macaulay last year, it was over 6 per cent. So we have, according to that authority at least, five years of over 6 per cent unemployment 27507-3-189
in Canada. In 1960 we had the most shockingly large figure of unemployment of any industrial country in the world.
Another new problem that we have to face is the fact that production per person in Canada declined between 1957 and 1961. If this is any satisfaction to the administration it is no satisfaction to any of us on the Liberal side. We had the prognostications of the Gordon commission to study with regard to where we should have been this past year. We should have been far ahead. Instead of that we have accumulated large debt per capita; we have produced record bankruptcies, and we still have this staggering rate of unemployment.
The final important point, Mr. Speaker, is the question of balance of payments. I submit that the questions of unemployment, growth and productivity are new problems with which this administration has failed to deal, but they inherited in part a problem that we knew something about, the problem of balance of payments. This calls for the most earnest consideration of long term principles. In this matter of the balance of payments I want to tell the house that in the last six years our obligations in respect of the goods and services we have bought from foreigners have exceeded by $6 billion the obligations owing to us for the goods and services we have sold to foreigners. We have settled these deficits by selling off our Canadian resources and Canadian owned companies and going into debt. I am quoting the words of a distinguished author, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon). Bruce Hutchison asserts that we are alienating our heritage to the point where we are in jeopardy in Canada of actually losing our economic and political independence.
We do not believe for one moment that with the establishment of a national economic development board a cabinet can sit down and simply be told what to do. There is something that goes with this. Policy has to be provided, and policy has to be provided very shortly, by an administration that is able to face facts, study situations and take action, courageous action, and not just look the other way when difficult problems present themselves. I think that with the combination of the establishment of this kind of integrating board and a bold and courageous administration, one that is looking ahead to the long run and not just to the next general election, Canada could have a glorious economic future.
(Translation):


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on this bill which provides for the establish-
2986	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board ment of a national economic development board. In fact, members on both sides of the house have done nothing else but depict the present situation in Canada.
Our Liberal and Conservative friends boast about what each of them has done but they did not say a word about what they should or could have done or what remains to be done.
After taking stock of the situation, we see that there is a lot that remains to be done because the Conservatives do nothing but criticize the Liberals for the way they administered the country prior to 1957 while, on the other hand, our Liberal friends blame the Conservatives for doing nothing to remedy anything they may have done wrong or failed to correct before 1957. It follows from all this bickering that after 22 years of Liberal government and a few years of Conservative administration, Canada is no better off.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to try and mention all the present economic anomalies and to find solutions, by suggesting we should perhaps proceed.
In all the statements made during this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have not heard one solution likely to settle the problem, except that taxation and tax increases have been mentioned.
Let us start with our natural resources which are the very basis of our wealth, here in Canada. The national economic development board could further develop our mines, our waterways and our forests, and through the Bank of Canada or exclusive Canadian credit, endeavour to develop our natural resources. In fact, it is useless to develop these resources through foreign capital, as the resources are finally no longer ours but belong to foreigners; in brief, it becomes foreign production for the benefit of foreigners. We should therefore stop begging foreign investors to develop our resources, because we find in the end that we are the ones being exploited by foreigners who come to live in our country at our expense.
Mr. Speaker, we have almost everything we need here in Canada. In our country, there are mines with unlimited resources. For instance, we have gold, asbestos and coal mines, and oil wells. How many Canadians would contend that those mines are being developed at present for the benefit of Canadians and with Canadian capital?
[Mr. Langlois.l

How many can claim also that Canada has full control over its economy? Not a single one, because it is a known fact that almost 80 per cent of our economy depends on foreign investments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hum of private conversations going on makes it very difficult for me to hear the hon. member who is speaking at the other end of the house. I would ask hon. members to lower their voices if they have to keep on talking among themselves.


Raymond Langlois: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that some members will not listen to the solutions offered them, because afterward they have to wrack their brains to find some.
How can we develop our forests, our mines and our tourist industry through the Bank of Canada?
There is nothing more strange than to hear foreign tourists ask us: "How do you like our new set up?" They gaze at Canadian undertakings and simply say to us: "How do you like our new building?" Please note that they say "our" building, because they themselves come to this country to build with their own funds, while we are inviting them to visit us. They do come, but they come to visit their own buildings.
Let us get the Bank of Canada to supply the credit required for the construction of the buildings we need and for the development of our natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to be logical in this country, let us start from this point: if our credit is based upon the wealth of our country, our natural resources, our production, let us also base our credit on our natural resources and our production. There is no difficulty there. The more we produce, the more we need the required credit. Let us stop taking that credit from the same pockets, the taxpayer's. Let us go where it should be taken, to the Bank of Canada, to balance the Canadian economy, instead of kneeling before foreign financiers.
That would amount to the same thing, it would still be credit, but it would be Canadian credit.
The national economic development board could do that, it could then control the situation and determine the amounts required for any economic development in Canada.

The Bank of Canada would be the body from which credit would come for any economic development that would take place in Canada, for instance.
We do not want any dictatorial control from the government.
Yesterday we heard about planning from one side of the house. We were even accused of being in favour of it since the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) was said to advocate planning. Let me remind the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Legare) of the exact words uttered by the hon. member for Red Deer while talking about planning. He said that he supported the kind of planning which would allow us to work together and not the type which would force us to work together. These are two different things: one which allows and the other which forces us. The meaning is entirely different.
If our hon. friends opposite wish to talk about planning in terms of economic guidance, very well then, we are with them. But if they mean a control which would tell us, for instance, "You will not do that" or "You will not produce this commodity any more", it is not the same thing as to say "We advise you not to produce this commodity any more".
One can play around with the word planning. No one in this house would like to be dictated to, hobbled or controlled.
We want a maximum of freedom and security. Let us choose economic guidance and put aside the terms planning, plans and more plans or what have you. So let us set up something that would get us to work hand in hand.
I heard someone say on the government side yesterday that what was sought was a mutual agreement between the leaders and the people. Very well. But how could there be such an agreement when one person only controls the big end of the whip, for instance? In that case, there could be no such agreement. If "planning" is used in the sense of economic guidance, that is all right. But if it means government control, we were not elected to this house to come here and dictate, to control or impose anything on the Canadian people, in the economic or in the financial field.
We are the servants of the people. The first man who will go to a riding and say: I came here to impose this or that will be defeated at the next election and he will have only himself to impose upon, at home and in peace.
27507-3-1891
National Economic Development Board
We are the servants of the people to work with them, to guide them and lead them. That is why we are for guided economic development and not for planning. We are not here to force planning on anybody.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rimouski made quite a trip yesterday. He went around the Gaspe peninsula like nobody else ever did. He mentioned the Conservative party which has not yet succeeded in building its railroad in the Gaspe peninsula. He made a good effort. He has come to realize that there are needs. Very well. I congratulate him. However, he has not found one solution, he has not made any suggestions but-


An hon. Member:: Taxes.


Raymond Langlois: Yes, he can levy taxes. That is a thing the present government can be blamed for. All you mention when you talk about Social Crediters is a machine that prints money over and over. We advocate an advancement machine, but you favour a backing machine, because you have a machine for taxation, the same one for 92 years, which continually empties the taxpayers' pockets. But the people have no more money. And if you go on like that, they will soon have no more pants left and no pockets for you to empty.
A national economic guidance and development board would enable our municipalities and school boards to take advantage of our country's wealth. Such a board would be helpful to industry in our communities.
I am thinking for instance of the Megantic area, where the world center of the asbestos industry is located. This natural wealth laboriously dug out of the earth by our own people is almost entirely shipped across the border to the U.S.A. to be manufactured into goods which later on find their way back to the shelves of our retail outlets and which cost three times the price of the raw material. We deplore the fact that this Canadian production must be manufactured abroad. Something is wrong with our administration. This is surely not the kind of administration advocated by the Social Credit party. The fact that our products have to be exported beyond our frontiers to be manufactured is most unfortunate. However, this has been going on for years. The same thing applies in western Canada as regards certain oil wells.
2988	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board
What else could come out of a national economic development board? Such a board would enable us to increase our labour force in Canada.
It is rather disheartening to hear about full employment, about unemployment and hardships, but nothing about production. I do not believe in over-all full employment, but I do believe in maximum employment. With that, we could at least go much further than we can with what we have today. There is no justification, in a country like Canada, for unemployment as we have it today. There is no reason for all the hardships which are to be found today.
We need economical guidance to avoid such situations. Let us develop our own mines, and natural resources; we have the required labour force, and we would then be able to get more out of our exports. These products must be good, since foreigners come to get them before they are processed. If they are good for them, they will be good for us, and the profits earned will remain in Canada.
Then, we can talk about Canadian production, about goods produced by Canadians and consumed, first of all-since they are in great need of it-by Canadians; any surplus could be exported. But, Canadians will first benefit from their own production, they will be contented and happy to live in a country where unlimited natural resources allow them to live as honest and honourable citizens.
The present situation is tragic because there are strikes in several areas. Salary increases are being sought everywhere. Why? Because the House of Commons cannot manage to find a solution. Canada's capital is always the target, on account of parliament, and it is from the House of Commons that solutions to our problems must come, and not only measures to increase or multiply taxes.
We could take the path, as some are doing now or have done in 1940, towards war in preparing our defence. Yes, at that time, our economy was geared to war production, and today there is talk of stocking nuclear weapons. There is even talk of stocking them on our soil.
I wonder whether the wife of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) shares his opinion. Has she handed her resignation to the Voice of Women or to the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Speaker, once again the solution already put forward in 1940 and in 1942 is suggested to us: war. The same party, the
IMr. Langlols.l

Liberal party, the war party, so to speak, once again is proposing war. In the 40's: mobilization; in the 50's: the Nobel peace award; in the 60's: nuclear weapons; and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition expects to get the Nobel prize again in 1970.
If we develop our natural resources and gear our economy to peaceful rather than warlike objectives, we shall leave our children and future generations something of which they will have reason to be proud-


An hon. Member:: He is one of your chums.


Raymond Langlois: -an income-you were here 22 years ago-guaranteed by a country which would show promise for the future. But what guarantee will stocking nuclear weapons and gearing the country to war, give us, except perhaps, the capacity to blow ourselves up at anytime?
If the Liberal party has no other proposal to make than to suggest war, it might as well remain in the opposition. At least, in that role, it can only talk and put its foot in it. Besides, we have seen the success it has achieved across Canada. I do not think that the national economic development board would gain anything in the hands of the Liberal party, because the latter would only use it with a view to stocking nuclear weapons.
As soon as a solution is sought, the Leader of the Opposition goes to Washington to get it. It might perhaps be preferable for his opposite number in Washington to come here, and for the leader of the Liberal opposition to take his place in Washington. Then at least we would get our solutions at once.
The Conservative party is somewhat uncertain perhaps. Could it be waiting to see what the Social Crediters will put forward? However, I would advise its members to work for peace and to guide our economy towards the development of our natural resources which are our most important source of wealth. It is not our population that makes us rich, there are only 18 million Canadians, and in that sense we are in fact one of the poorest peoples in the world.
But we have, in Canada, something which, per capita, is not to be found anywhere else in the world, our natural resources. But with the administration we have had for 22 years, those resources have only brought us taxes and debts.
I was listening yesterday to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Martineau) who said that we were enjoying very great

National Economic Development Board
economic stability. I hope it is true and he was not referring to the stability we had been "enjoying" until June 18, since in that case we could very well awaken tomorrow morning to And that we have to walk in our stocking feet for quite a spell.
Let us hope he was sincere in saying that we were enjoying great economic stability-


Hon. Paul Martineau (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in view of the fact that 1 was being quoted by the hon. member I should like him to bear in mind that I was quoting a statement by the President of the United States to the effect that of all countries in the world, Canada was enjoying the greatest economic stability at the present time.


Raymond Langlois: I trust the President of the United States is better aware than we are of the economic situation of Canada because the fact that you ascribe to him your assertions shows that you are not quite certain whether there is any economic stability in Canada. You would be better advised to get some information first and then tell us what our economic situation is.
If our economy is stable, let us keep it that way. Instead of bragging about your achievements, you would be well advised to look to the future and show us the way.
As for the Canadian people, if you provide them with jobs and open up new expansion vistas so that they may prosper on Canadian soil instead of crossing the border, they will be willing to help you in all matters which are beneficial to Canada.
If, however, your efforts serve the exclusive interests of the United States, Canadians will refuse to follow you.


An hon. Member:: Give us white berets.


Raymond Langlois: No, no white berets. Before thinking of headgear, you should have a head on your shoulders.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian citizens who are aware of our development potential and of our achievements to date, surely feel rather surprised when they think of all our resources. As our expansion possibilities seem to be used exclusively for war purposes, Canadians may well wonder what kind of government is at the helm.
Instead of using our resources for warfare or for the storage of nuclear weapons on our own soil, let us try to produce for peaceful purposes. Let us produce bread and butter for the hungry people of Canada.
If unemployment figures supplied to us are accurate, the situation is intolerable in a country such as ours. We are justified in considering the establishment of an economic development board without delay. It should be set up so as to allow the production and use of our goods in the best interests of Canada.
There was no trouble finding the money required to manufacture weapons in wartime. Money was found to clothe our soldiers, to manufacture bombs and shells and even to stage an international slaughter. It is always found for that purpose. But now that the war is over, it is impossible to find money to feed those who are hungry.
What can our young people hope for today? The storage of nuclear weapons. But they never hear about an improved economic situation, or about new openings to enable them to earn a living or assistance to complete their studies.
A third of the population is wondering today whether they were born merely to starve or to pay taxes, and then to be deprived of work because of alleged overproduction.
Those people are denied work, they have no place in our country, they are even denied the right to live.
Mr. Speaker, can a young man who is turned down for a job three or four times in succession, after he has been out of school for over a year, have a good opinion of his country and of its leaders?
Mr. Speaker, I have been a school teacher and I know some of my pupils who, two years after having left school, had not yet set foot in a factory to work. When they apply for a job they are told there are no openings, that employees are being laid off rather than new ones hired. We then find ourselves in the presence of young people having neither work nor hope of finding any. What happens then? Some young people are put in jail for having robbed a bank, a store or a warehouse. How have they reached that point? Are they thieves, or are they lazy? Not at all. The fault is ours; we, the leaders of Canada deny them the right to earn a living honourably in a country which should allow everyone to live.
2990	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Economic Development Board
At present the economic situation of parents forbids them to keep five or six children at home in idleness. You say they are lazy.
I know some of them are not. I could put up a poster advertising jobs, and 1,500 persons would turn up in one night-and I challenge anyone of you to undertake the task of answering the telephone. You would then realize they are not lazy, but that if such a situation exists, it is our own fault, since we are unable to correct it.
We refuse to provide jobs for young people coming out of school, yet we send them to school and tell them: "Study and your future will be assured." They come out of school with a fine diploma, but also with a $3,000 debt. When they come out of school, they are full of enthusiasm, but a year later that enthusiasm has abated after they have been denied the right to work, to find jobs which would permit them to live in Canada, like other Canadian citizens, as any citizen is entitled to. And this is why some of them are arrested for bank robbery. They were not born bad or robbers, but the present system drives them up that blind alley. They are brought before courts where they are sentenced to 10 or 12 years in jail. After having been denied the right to live, they are sentenced to 10 years behind bars with a pension. Let each hon. member think about his own riding and see whether this is not the case. And we call that juvenile delinquency. Now, middle-aged workers that we cannot afford to maintain behind bars, become part of what we call juvenile delinquents. There is also a group between 60 and 65 years of age: they are called the senior delinquents. The evil affects all classes of society. Is society itself delinquent? Are we going to say that all Canadian citizens are bandits? Come now. People want to work, they want to produce and earn their living honourably at home. The parents have certainly not raised their children to see them Spend the rest of their days behind bars. Mr. Speaker, a sentence of 10 or 12 years in jail leaves marks on an individual, it brands him for the rest of his life. This man will be bitter towards society for the rest of his life because society has denied him the means to earn a living.
And that is called juvenile delinquency. If some youngsters rob banks, the father and mother are not to be blamed for it. I put the blame on our present system, on our economy which should have provided work for these young men, so that they might earn
[Mr. Langlois.l
a decent living and have three meals a day. Those are essential rights and should not be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, I hear laughter. I hope hon. members are cracking jokes with their neighbours, for the situation which is to be found today in Canada is most serious. Several of them know neither the young, nor the middle-aged nor the old people. Some who are sitting here do not know anybody except, perhaps, during the four weeks before an election. Then they know everybody. Whether they be thieves, robbers, old or young, everybody is their friend. They cultivate their good will during those last four weeks. Then, after having won the election, they forget them for four years, and do not see them any more.
Some of them are serious-minded, and some less so. Some are working for the people, and others for the financial interests. Some wear out the seat of their pants because they seldom rise to speak. There they sit and work for the financial interests or for their own interests.
We should never forget one thing: that financial interests which stifle the people today will stifle tomorrow those who serve them. The same can be said for any action we take today, because we will have to account for it tomorrow.
There are some bank directors and, indeed, there are all over the place people who are working for the financial interests and not for the people. If those financial interests would, at least, help society develop its natural resources and work in unison with the Bank of Canada for the benefit of the Canadian people, so that we could begin to consume our surplus production ourselves. Let us start by giving the world the means of obtaining food instead of giving bombs as was done during the last war. It is all very well to be independent, but if you want peace, do not prepare for war.


An hon. Member:: That is not what Caesar said.


Raymond Langlois: I shall conclude my remarks by saying that if the national economic development board uses Canadian finance to develop our Canadian natural resources, which are the wealth of this country, so that we have a completely Canadian production, one could say then, in all sincerity, that Canada belongs to Canadians, and then Canadians might rightly say: "We are proud to live in Canada because we are working for ourselves and not for foreign countries that may some day let us starve".

(Text):


Mr. Jack Davis (Coasl-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, during the time available to me today I want to make three points. The first is that planning on a national scale is a necessity. The second is that such planning should be carried out essentially in human and not in monetary terms. The third is that effective co-operation between management and labour in this country will only come about if we have inspired leadership from government. This is evident to all.
As far as planning is concerned, I believe we have no choice because the business of government has become far too cumbersome, far too all embracing. Fifteen per cent or one in seven at least of the people employed in this country are working in the civil service. Roughly one third of our income is taken away from us in taxes. Government, by taxing us and influencing us in this way, is undoubtedly having a great deal to say about how we work and whether or not we prosper.
Government obviously then must be interested in looking ahead and planning intelligently. But it must do more than plan intelligently. It must also inspire industry, management and labour in this country. It can inspire them in various ways but one of the most effective ways, I contend, is to prepare competent forecasts of what is likely to happen assuming no change in present policies. If the results compared with the forecasts do not measure up to our fond hopes, then new targets must be established and these targets must be broken down so that they are understandable to industry and so that our various industries can themselves plan more intelligently.
In other words, it is a problem of communication. The government should not only know where it is going but should indicate where it would prefer to go and let industry, management and labour, working together bring about the desired results.
I have used the word "planning" throughout my comments so far. I believe in planning. We all believe in planning. We all believe in looking ahead and attempting to correct trends which we do not like and avoid results which are undesirable to us. But planning in my view, and this is important, comes second to freedom, particularly freedom of the individual. Plans, particularly specific plans laid down by government, must give way where they impinge on the freedom of the individual, the freedom of groups of individuals to go their own way and make their own livelihood as they see fit.
This planning must certainly be adapted to Canadian institutions. In my view planning
National Economic Development Board. at the top government level should be carried out by ministers of the crown. So far as economic affairs are concerned, I believe there should always be a continuing committee of the cabinet on economic affairs. I also believe that this cabinet committee should not be dominated by, or consist solely of, the Minister of Finance. If there is anything in the Social Credit philosophy in which I concur it is that money is essentially a tool. Our monetary affairs must be managed so as to make effective our plans for a better life, greater production and more jobs.
To me the Minister of Finance personifies the man who has control of money. He is holding the reins, and often he is putting on the brake. Certainly he is not the man in the cabinet to put the case for growth. He is not the man in the cabinet to put the case for humanity in the sense of more jobs. In this respect I am more impressed by the arrangements in the United Kingdom. The national economic development board, or "Neddy" as they refer to it in the United Kingdom, has on it not simply the minister of finance but Mr. Industry, the secretary of the board of trade, and also the minister of labour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the chancellor of the exchequer not the chairman?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, the chairman is the equivalent of our Minister of Finance. Therefore you have at the highest level in the cabinet not only a representative of monetary affairs in the country but also representatives of industry and of labour. I believe that in effective planning at the highest level in government we must follow this course and must hear not only the voice of those who look at our problems in monetary terms but also the voices of those who look at our problems in terms of getting the economy rolling more effectively and putting people to work in jobs where they can improve their efficiency, their income and their welfare.
We had this situation in the late 1940's and the 1950's in this country. We had a minister of industry and a minister of labour as well as a minister of finance who took an interest in over-all economic growth and planning. As evidence of this planning we had such activities as the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects and its preparation of long term forecasts. We also had cooperation with industry. Evidence of that is to be found in the quarterly meetings of ministers, top level civil servants and business economists the latter representing the views of the various industries and of labour across the country. In other words there was machinery, admittedly voluntary, which resulted in an exchange of views and the trans-
2992	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board mittal to industry and labour of the ideas of government as to trends and desirable courses of action. This worked, and I think we must return to an effective liaison of this type between government, management and labour in this Canada of ours.
What has happened since? The individuals concerned in those matters have largely been dispersed from Ottawa. Their advice is no longer available, with the result that these channels have largely dried up. I believe we should revive some such arrangement. I also think that this legislation, although admittedly a first step toward a national economic development board, should help us bridge this gap.
I believe there should be a secretariat to this cabinet committee on economic affairs. I believe its chairman should in effect have similar duties to those of the chairman of the proposed national economic development board. He should have around him a board of advisers. He should have under him a substantial staff, and this staff should be preparing long term economic forecasts.
In addition to that, having received instructions from the elected representatives or from the cabinet in respect of desirable targets, courses of action should be taken in respect of improving employment opportunities, correcting our adverse balance of trade with the United States, and so on.
I believe that some of the members of this staff should be acting as rapporteurs. They should act as secretaries for industry committees, committees substantially set up by the industries concerned. These committees should be composed of representatives of both management and labour. These rapporteurs, together with the representatives of industry and labour, will have their eyes lifted from the continuation of the relatively mundane activities of business to improving our national production, also by focusing their eyes on a common objective, that of improving our economy, they will thus be less inclined to quarrel about their differences; less inclined to argue between themselves in respect to wages, profits and so on.
I believe we have had at least one example of this type of thing in recent years. We had, first of all, the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. Then as a result of the Borden commission a good deal of information was made available to government and to industry in terms of forecasts, particularly in respect of oil. The purchase
[Mr. Davis.l

of oil from outside our border has been one of the major causes of our imbalance of payments. We need to purchase more oil at home for our own consumption, and export more. This royal commission provided this sort of information. It provided a background against which the oil industry was able to do more effective planning. The government of the day took this information seriously and indicated to the oil industry what targets were desirable with regard to our international trade.
These targets, as I understand it, are in large part being met. This is a practical example of "indicative" planning, as the French call it, indicating targets to industry. After the target is indicated the industry bends its efforts toward achieving the target which is substantially in the national interest. If the targets are not met, other methods might have to be instituted by the government to ensure that such problems as the balance of payments are overcome.
Then there are the area boards. We now have an Atlantic development board. The area boards would learn a great deal from the deliberations of these various industry committees. I would envisage two or three dozen such committees publishing reports from time to time as to the prospects of particular industries and as to the changes which might be expected. The area boards could read these reports and understand what, conceivably, could happen with regard to a particular region of the country, what the possibilities were of a decline, an increase and so on, and when they were likely to occur. This would assist in the selection of alternatives for depressed areas, particularly areas of high unemployment.
We have, of course, in this business of planning, particularly in the execution of an effective plan, some rather difficult decisions to make. We cannot simply make forecasts. We cannot rely entirely on the prosperous, growing industries to co-operate, and then go along subsidizing or otherwise supporting the industries and areas which are in difficulties. The field of energy in this country represents roughly 10 per cent of our economy. We have industries which are growing in this field and industries which are declining. The oil and gas industries are expanding, and so is the production of hydro power. All the forecasts, however, indicate that over the next five or ten years the production and consumption of coal is likely to decline. Our governments, both national and provincial, say nothing or do not indicate otherwise. Certainly the policies they follow do not face up to the fact that not only are the requirements for coal declining but that the coal industry is not likely to make its way in competition with

other forms of energy and therefore the number of people employed will be diminishing in ten years' time to about half or 40 per cent of those now employed.
These are the probabilities, these are the trends which our national economic development board, supported by an able secretariat, would have to report. Certainly these are the trends which would be revealed by an effective board reporting publicly and effectively at least once a year.
In so far as energy is concerned at the present time, we have at least four separate departments concerned with that subject. We have the Department of Trade and Commerce concerned with oil and gas. We have the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys concerned with coal and the powers of the dominion coal board. We have the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources concerned with hydro. We have, believe it or not, the Department of Veterans Affairs concerned with atomic energy. In my opinion none of these departments is represented effectively in the deliberations of this proposed national economic development board.
I think we should focus not only on the declining industries such as coal but on the future prospects of industries such as atomic energy. We have been spending currently about $20 million a year on coal subsidies of one kind and another. We are spending roughly $30 million a year on atomic energy. We have already put enough money into atomic energy in this country to build an oil pipe line from Edmonton to Montreal. In other words Montreal, in terms of economics, could be right next to the oil fields of Alberta.
We have decided more or less willy-nilly to go on pumping these tens of millions of dollars into atomic energy. Atomic energy is, perhaps, good for some parts of the country, but is essentially competitive with the resources of Quebec, British Columbia and other parts of the country which still have large untapped reserves of hydroelectric power. A national economic development board would certainly indicate that other priorities might be established in respect of subsidies and assistance for the energy industries. They would urge that by some means of adjustment we arrange that the emphasis be upon industries which are in the economic interest of the country rather than upon the ones which are either outmoded or may not be needed for some considerable time.
There are many other decisions which are difficult and which have to be made by the government, a government learning from the projections and deliberations of the national economic development board. The declining industries would be making people available who would have to be retrained for other 27507-3-190
National Economic Development Board jobs. Certainly the recent legislation with regard to industrial change and manpower adjustment is desirable in this connection. It can provide some machinery, but we should know in advance where these people are likely to be in surplus supply, what new skills are needed and how the people should be retrained. Only by looking ahead, revising our targets and establishing new targets, can we properly provide the direction and encouragement for those who are unemployed and those likely to need training as a result of great improvements in efficiency and productivity.
We have, in another area, the perennial argument between management and labour in respect of annual increases in wages, and so on. Managers, particularly managers concerned with finding export markets, will say, "Our productivity is only improving at the rate of 2 or 3 per cent a year. We cannot afford to pay more or we will be pricing ourselves out of world markets". Labour is inclined to be suspicious of this claim. But if we had an effective national economic development board complete with a capable secretariat, it would be giving industry and labour an indication year by year of the over-all upward trend in productivity gains. It would provide an order of magnitude of wage increases as a result of these improvements in productivity in the whole economy. Labour could certainly be pitching its demands more realistically in terms of wage increases, and management would have a better idea of where it was going, not only in respect of its domestic business but also its competitive position overseas.
Again, Mr. Speaker, with regard to scientific and industrial research, we do not do enough in this country. We should do more. Even with an increase in this type of expenditure we need to know where the emphasis should lie. In this connection government is certainly making the major outlay in this country. It should be placing those moneys into what in the future will be the growth industries, and not running counter to the mainstream of economic development throughout the world. One thing that alarms me very much in this mixed economy of ours, in which much of our income is generated by private enterprise, is that we tax private enterprise. On the other hand we participate, in the form of crown agencies and other government devices, in industries which we, by definition, say that private enterprise is unwilling, perhaps incapable, of carrying out. As a result we often find the greater part of government outlays going into industries which are declining, or certainly less efficient, and tend to restrict the more economic activities, those carried out by private enterprise, through taxation. This
2994	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board is certainly a mixed up concept of how to progress and how to make our country more productive.
A national economic development board that was really doing its job would indicate where the real growth prospects are, where the great improvements in efficiency were possible. It would indicate to the government that while subsidies may be necessary in some industry or in some area for a period of time, these should be tapered off and eventually terminated. In this way we would not continually be getting deeper and deeper into the morass, making ourselves less efficient in ever widening areas of our economy.
There are various attitudes to planning. The attitude, generally speaking, of management is favourable. Most people would expect that the formation of a national economic development board would cause a good deal of opposition in business. But business at the management level is accustomed to planning. In our preponderantly free enterprise system we have a great deal of collaboration now in respect of planning. Through the industrial associations, for example, the results of forecasts and plans are published. Even cost data is now made available to competitors in substantial areas of competition. Industry, in the sense of management, is prepared to do this sort of planning and looks to government, and relies upon government and hopes that government will be more predictable on this front.
We see, in the case of France, for example, that management of industry largely took the initiative in the formulation of the national plan for industry in that country. Labour, on the other hand, at least through the voices of their more socialistic representatives, has tended to oppose plans through the management route. Labour in the United Kingdom, for example, has not been very enthusiastic about the establishment of the national economic development board in that country. It saw sinister implications; it saw management in some fashion directing, in perhaps collaboration with the government, more rather than less of the nation's economic affairs. Certainly the trade unions in the United Kingdom have been very suspicious of the formation more recently of yet another board, nicknamed "Nicky", the board which has to do with the establishment of a national incomes policy in the United Kingdom. The hope there is that by preparing general economic data a better measure of what labour and industry might reasonably expect, in terms of wage increases and profits, would be available. The unions have tended to be very cool to this particular board and its purposes.


I trust that in this country we can have better communication between government, management and labour in these respects and that labour will begin to look upon an effective national economic development board as its opportunity for a voice, not only in respect of direction, but accomplishment of the national targets which a far seeing board would set up for us.
Government, I believe, sets the stage. It needs a competent secretariat to give it a feel as to the current, long term trends. I believe our elected representatives should substantially say what is desirable and what is not desirable in the main, and in the broadest context should indicate what targets should be achieved. I believe that in this way government itself could be consistent in respect of its own investment policies; it could be more consistent in respect of tax policies in times of slump and in times of boom. I believe that industry, with management and labour working together and with this over-all information and instruction, can, industry by industry, plan more effectively its own future. Certainly it could be more productive.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


John (Jack) Davis: I would prefer to finish, as my time is limited. I may have a few minutes left, and I will be glad to answer questions then. I believe that in this way we could have greater output, greater productivity, and this in turn would make possible higher incomes in this country. The consequence of higher incomes certainly could be broader welfare provisions without an increase in taxes. This is very desirable. It is the type of thing for which certainly the Liberal party is striving. It faces head on the problem of providing greater and more extended services to the public, and at the same time not increasing taxation and blunting the initiative of our people. This is very desirable and I believe it is possible with the proper type of democratic planning.
I want to return to the main points which I outlined at the beginning, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we need in this country a sense of national purpose. I believe that every one should be participating, government, management and labour, in this great program. I believe that to operate effectively a national economic development board co-operating with industry and with individual industry's boards set up voluntarily, working to indicated targets, can bring this about. We must take this board seriously. It is not ideal, but I think that in time it could perform a valuable function. I believe it could make use of,

National Economic Development Board
and help to expand, our existing democratic institutions and I believe that by following this course of intelligent, democratic planning we can make Canada strong and free.


Thomas Rodney Berger: May I ask the hon. member a question? I believe he did not exhaust the time at his disposal. In the course of his address, one which I think all of us enjoyed, the hon. member referred to Liberal economic and monetary policies. He said the elected representatives of the people should advocate those policies which they deemed desirable. I was wondering if he could tell us what part in planning is played by that keystone of Liberal economic and monetary policy, debt free money?


Mr. J. H. Addison (York North):: In any
discussion of Canada's future economic development a number of Canadians will spend a great deal of time talking about how they pioneered this continent-and then they drop the discussion. I am not suggesting we should forget about those pioneer days, but what concerns us now is the present. I say "the present" because we can hardly think of the future until we have caught up with the present. The present represents the circumstances we have to face as far as our export products are concerned.
The first thing we have to do in this country is to acknowledge that we are now taking hesitant steps in a direction which has already been pioneered in Europe and in other countries. We have to consider economic development as the opportunity of this age. In other ages opportunities lay with war, exploration, scientific discoveries and inventions. But there is a different opportunity open to us in this country today and that is the opportunity of economic development. We must, therefore, get rid of the economic superstitions and illusions we have been cherishing and realize that we can no longer exist in this hard shell we have placed around our borders. We must realize that though we were prosperous once we now have to take drastic steps to find a place in this new economic era.
During the last war, Europe underwent almost total destruction. Today it has become the co-leader of the productive world. We in Canada have an opportunity of moving into this new age without suffering the type of disruption which Europe had to endure. We do not possess the advanced industrial development of some other countries and we are, therefore, in a position to change our course more easily. It is most important that we in this country should take this big jump- a leap which will shatter all the ideas of outworn economic theories. We do not have as many men with the skill and knowledge necessary for this development and accordingly 27507-3-190J
we must train such people. This can be done as a result of assistance by our government. The western nations have shown us how, with economic assistance in investment and as a result, they have been able to rehabilitate their economies.
Under the terms of the bill we are now discussing the chairman of the proposed board can be appointed for a period of office of ten years. His responsibilities are set out, along with the duties of the board, in one of the subsections. This chairman could become the second most powerful man in our country. I would suggest to the government that he should report to a group of ministers in the cabinet, namely a new minister of industry, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The chairman should become part of this committee. In my experience, and in the experience of others, it is more efficient to have a chairman of a board of this type report to a select group of people so that those people may take the action which is necessary.
The national economic development board, if it is not to be just a phrase, must become the centre of our whole economic theory for this country. This is what the Japanese did after the last war and, as a result, they have become extremely successful. In short, with this national economic development board we are embarking on a new way of life, and the Canadian people, if they endorse this idea, must put everything they have into it. I say we must have Canada moving into gear. Let us not waste any more time than we have already wasted. The day of gradual growth is over. There are acquisitions and amalgamations. I suggest it is one of the great responsibilities of this board to set a standard for the yearly increase of productivity in this country. I think our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, had an outstanding idea in his national policy for economic development. None of us here anticipate a long life for this government and, therefore, it would prove an advantage if, in these days of minority government, we could get together as a parliament and adopt a Canadian policy. The co-operation of management and workers of which I have spoken comes about only as a result of prodding by the government. The new responsibility of government, of management and of the workers is the responsibility to work together for the national good, which, in the final sense, is the good of the individual.
All hon. members have, I am sure, read the report to the national productivity council of the mission to Europe. This is, in my opinion, the most outstanding achievement of this
2996	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Economic Development Board
council. The report made one important thing clear. While labour management and government co-operation was not the factor wholly responsible for Europe's economic resurgence, nevertheless co-operation was the core of this whole development. There were, of course, other important factors. We all know of the heavy investment of United States capital in those countries, of the new plants which were built and the new equipment which was installed. Moreover, in those countries wage scales were lower than in the United States. This was a vital factor because a wage incentive remained-there was always the possibility of more pay being given for more work. On the part of ownership and management there was appreciation of the fact that profits could not be unrestricted. Of course, no economic system can develop without profit because profit is needed for reinvestment. But no management or employer can operate a business at abnormal profits while asking labour to produce more for less or for the same reward. As I have already stated, we have to do this in order to compete in world markets, which means that we have to price our products on a world competitive basis. I am not suggesting that everything that Europe has done is right, but I am suggesting that we must compete with these people, and if we are to compete with them, we must compete with them on the same basis. In this country not only must we go into the second half of this century with a responsible and modern government-management-worker co-operation and with new export ideas; we also have to do other things. This means quite simply that we have to supply our own people with the tools to compete on world markets, and these tools are the languages, the customs and the real needs of our potential customers.
What have we really done along this line? The government's productivity council in my opinion was poorly conceived, and so poorly conceived that in its first year it lost its main managerial representative and its main organized labour representative. I do not think it is necessary to describe the work of the labour-management council because we are all familiar with it, but it is constructive to note how the British system works and how it could be applied to Canada. It is also interesting and important to understand the industry-wide bargaining between labour and management which is the case in Europe. What I should particularly like to point out is that in the European countries, or in a large bulk of them, management is organized much the same as labour is organized, thus , creating a balance of power in which the government sits in the centre and acts as

a referee. What we have to do in the national economic development board, and also what the government has to do in the national economic development board, is to get public opinion behind it. I think we all recognize and understand how very important this is.
Can we compare today the first 62 days of this session with the first 100 days of President Roosevelt's term of office in 1933?
I have a note here which says:
On Thursday, March 16, 1933, less than two weeks after his inauguration, Roosevelt asked the congress for a new federal concept for the American farmer-national planning for U.S. agriculture.
That was in 1933. This country and this government, if this idea is to work, have to do something dramatic, such as that which happened in Ontario with Sir Adam Beck and the hydro, or as Roosevelt did with TVA, or as the Egyptians have recently done with the Aswan dam, or as we Canadians did when the St. Lawrence seaway was conceived and placed into operation, when we decided that if the American people would not cooperate with us in this great project we would go it alone. I believe that we have to understand planning in its valuable, modern, capitalistic and free enterprise sense. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in the last election, as quoted in the Globe and Mail of October 25, 1961, that "the issue in the next election would be free enterprise versus socialism". I think we all realize now that this was not the issue in the last election and I doubt very much that it will be the issue in the next election.
It could be that a lack of any planning at the top is at the bottom of our economic troubles today. The essential factor in planning of this type is that it should not be put solely into administrative agencies, which are uncontrollable by their nature, but that the agencies work and be controlled within the framework of the parliamentary system. Governments can be put out of office, which is why any system of planning must be controlled by the elected representatives of government who can protect the national good. Economic planning boards or productivity councils appointed by the government should be presided over by a permanent secretary, but come within the jurisdiction of a national economic development council chaired by a minister of the crown, with other ministers as members and with representatives from industrial management, agriculture, trade unions and universities. What has to be done now in what eminent economists call the "break-through moment" is this. No longer can we look for gradual improvements. This

is a "take-off crisis", and there must be a leap in getting off the ground, which is the most difficult phase of planning. The initial leap has to be pushed and pursued, and it will be quite a time before it can, as in the European common market countries feed on itself. There can be no new economic development until at least one tenth of the national income over and above the investment needed to maintain a growing population at the same standard of living is put into productive investment.
We should also remember and should understand that industrial productivity for export and international trade is not our only consideration. There is a great deal of work yet to be done in this country in community services, such as highways, transport, communications, distribution and credit. We can learn one very valuable lesson. During the building of our railways in this country there was provided a major economic impetus to the economy. We used our Canadian talents and materials to this end, and we have by no means yet completed our transportation and communications systems across the country. We are now also up against the growing problems of extra people moving into urban areas because of higher and greater efficiency in farming areas. This is going to mean that these people must be retrained for more productive jobs. As we are preparing for a major economic change in development, we are going to be caught for a long time in a dilemma between not spending enough on our foundation programs, starving our economic development and conjuring up inflation by putting investment into unproductive, though sometimes popular, channels.
What I am going to say now does not make for political popularity, but it must be said in the interests of genuine and stable permanent development. We need jobs in this country and we need them very badly; but there is the danger of confusing the creation of jobs with economic growth. Uneconomic investment made to create what can be only temporary jobs depletes the country's resources. Unemployment is a danger certainly, and it is a terrible problem; but stagnation is more dangerous since it produces more unemployment.
I would therefore suggest that our economic planning must consider the direction of investment as well as the finding of capital. I would also suggest that our N.H.A. loans available to people in order to build homes should also be available to people in order to build factories, and in cutting the rate of unemployment which is recommended by this board, for the producing of products that
National Economic Development Board can be sold competitively outside our country. We need capital and we need external capital. Europe and the Marshall plan is an excellent example. We must remember that we must not sell off all of our natural assets in order to acquire this capital. Most rate impetus in an economy is based upon the influx of foreign capital but this must be controlled, and it certainly was controlled in the case of the United States.
I should now like to discuss some countries such as Holland and Belgium. These are useful examples, I believe. Even as the minister pointed out, in creating this national economic development board we must remember our own particular problems. It is interesting to note that a small country such as Holland exports 50 per cent of its products and the great emphasis that is placed in that country upon a lower wage scale. However, this is accompanied by full employment. Wages in that country are increased only on the basis of productivity. However, they are only increased with the proviso that by increasing wages and prices they do not place themselves outside the pricing of world competition. There is a strong sense of friendship between labour, management and government in that country.
There is also the interesting case of Poland with respect to the production of agricultural products. These people have the ability and the land with which to produce wheat but instead of producing wheat in sufficient volume to feed their country, they import it. Poland has found it can produce more productive products which can be sold and which are more valuable to them, than is the production of wheat for their own consumption. This is the kind of thing that I suggest we in Canada must do. What can we produce for ourselves and what is most profitable to the Canadian people?
I suggest that we must take this leap into modem economic development in Canada. We must provide the leadership for voluntary cooperation for mutual improvement. We must employ new concepts for labour management relations with the government as a partner- and I am sure that all of us have the government as a partner-and I suggest as a partner and not as a big brother. We in this chamber have the responsibility of guiding and controlling the total destinies of capital, management and labour. We must abandon any isolationist ideas and understand that today we are part of a large international community. Most of all, we must have in this country a government which will look upon Canada not regionally but as a great nation among nations of this world.
2998	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, there have been made in this debate some interesting speeches to which members of this group have been very pleased to listen. While we were listening to these speeches I was reminded of the change of climate in this chamber over the space of a few years. While the group of which I sun a member for years has advocated the necessity for planning in freedom to provide a measure of basic security for all Canadians, members of other parties failed to agree with them. It is not so long ago that one of the members of the free enterprise parties in this house rose in his place and stated that any member of this house who suggests planning is suggesting reducing the Canadian people to slavery. I therefore think we must take some credit for creating a climate at least that is willing to consider this idea, if in some instances only in theory.
A perusal of the minister's speech and an examination of the bill very carefully in the time at my disposal causes me to say that in my opinion on this occasion the minister has blotted his McCutcheon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is corny.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister is such a kindly person that when speaking on the resolution preceding the bill he reminded me of the country doctor giving his patient a dose of soothing syrup and saying, "This may not cure you but it will make you feel a lot better". Without a doubt he is one of the most congenial and humane members of this house to man the ramparts of capitalism on this occasion.
I speak as a democratic socialist who believes that economic planning under the control of the parliament of Canada is the only alternative to the political dictatorship of communism and the growing economic dictatorship of monopoly capitalism. This afternoon there has been some reference to the question of freedom. The members of this group take this point of view with respect to the development of this economy because we believe in freedom. We do not believe that it should be the freedom of any Canadian to remain unemployed over a long period of months because his services are unrequired. The type of planning in which we believe is planning that places the responsibility for major policy in the hands of the people's representatives and not in the hands of the directors of a few corporations in Canada and not as now, should I say, in the majority of cases so far as large scale industry is concerned, in directorships held in New York and other large United States cities.


With all deference to the minister may I say that in my opinion this legislation is merely political window dressing. We will support it because it represents an idea. It shows we are making progress. They even accept the word "planning" now, even though they do not take action in that direction. I think it is a sop to the current interest in planning and the demand for planning in many quarters-a legislative wind, shall I say, to direct this current of thought into safe free enterprise planning.
When I criticize this legislation or any other legislation for members of our group, we do not do it with the thought that other people, because they believe other things are more appropriate, are unprincipled or immoral. We are simply placing on record our point of view in this house. Our points of view are largely determined as a result of our environment, our experience and our willingness to consider these problems as a result of reading, association, contacts with others and so on. In my few remarks which are always brief from my point of view, I will endeavour to prove my contentions by comments on the minister's speech, on the terms of the bill, on some of Senator McCutcheon's statements outside the house, and by reference given to this legislation by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to the minister's remarks. I refer to his blessing on the principle of the bill. I am very glad he has returned to the chamber because I want to say a few complimentary things about him later.
I listened to the minister's speech very carefully and I thought it was very well put from his point of view. I also read it carefully. But I notice that this planning board will act in a very nebulous advisory capacity. There are no particular projects mentioned. There are no definitive suggestions as to the direction or approach that the board should take to our economic problems. There are no funds provided for any economic research in this direction or even research into projects rather than simply pure research into the mechanical aspects of economics. I do agree with the minister when he says that the aim is to provide a Canadian aspect to our development, rather than going in another direction; but after reading the terms of the bill I am afraid we will find that once again it is Canadian in name only, so far as major control of our economy is concerned.
I want to make a few comments on the bill and when the minister replies at the conclusion of the debate no doubt he will answer the questions I raise. We are very interested and have been for years in the proper development of our natural resources as the basis for the continued prosperity of

National Economic Development Board
this country and the maintenance of a reasonable and decent material standard of living. What we want to know is, does the bill anticipate planning with the provinces for the proper conservation and development of our natural resources? That is basic to the development of our whole economy. We realize that there are problems in this connection, but in our opinion it is the responsibility of both the federal and provincial governments to co-operate in planning the conservation, development and utilization of our natural resources. If we fail to do that in the near future, possibly we will have lost the opportunity for all time.
Does this bill provide for planning to return the ownership and control of foreign investment to Canadian governments and to Canadians generally? That is a question we want answered. Does the bill anticipate the establishment of a national development fund to promote public investment and does it anticipate the mobilization of private Canadian capital? In this connection I want to refer to the pipe line, not the debate in the house and the abuse of the rules of the house by the government of the day but the opportunity that was lost at that time because the government then did not believe in public ownership, in principle. The former Liberal government lent a large American corporation $86 million, I believe, to build a pipe line across Canada. That $86 million should have been public investment, and if it had been the investment would be paying a good return to the Canadian people at this time.
Does this bill anticipate legislation to correct the balance of payments problem? If we do not correct it within the next few years we will remain in financial servitude to the United States. The balance of payments problem arises primarily from foreign investments. Does the bill anticipate promotion by the government of Canadian participation in ownership and management of foreign owned industries? That is the first step that has to be taken by government. Does it anticipate the conversion of shares into bond issues so that we can look forward in the years to come to paying off this indebtedness, as was done in the United States, as was done in Sweden and as was also done in Norway years ago? Does this bill anticipate the type of planning that provides a system of taxation of dividends that will give the Canadian government control over the various aspects of the country's economic development?
Does this type of planning anticipate regulation to ensure operation of private enterprise to the advantage of Canadian consumers and workers generally? Does it anticipate regulation that will make foreign owned industries
conform to Canadian national policies with respect to export markets? That is something on which any government should take action in the very near future.
Does this bill anticipate the implementation of regulations that will prevent the hobbling of secondary industry by foreign owners? In that connection I should like to quote from the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, December 4, 1962. This situation is recognized even by persons who believe in the free enterprise system. The article from which I wish to quote is a dispatch from Ottawa under the heading, "Ottawa Viewpoint, Canadian Growth Lag Laid To Hobbling By Foreign Ownership", and reads in part as follows:
A professor of economics at Laval University, Roger Dehem, has looked back over the past five years of what he calls Canada's stunted growth-
One would not have thought that if one listened to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) last evening, but we all have different points of view.
-and offers an explanation for its cause-the hobbling of secondary industry by foreign owners.
The article continues, quoting the professor:
"I suggest that a basic factor inhibiting the growth of secondary manufacturing in Canada is not the smallness of the home market but the satellitic nature of most of our important firms," Professor Dehem asserted.
Then he goes on to say:
"The Canadian market has thus been glutted with high cost, high priced and often inferior American products. The inefficiency that is inherent in this structure seems to be a main cause of our stagnation in the past few years."
Professor Dehem charged that Canadian subsidiaries of foreign corporations are deliberately restricted to the domestic market rather than spreading out into world markets, and that high protection made them too inefficient to compete abroad.
No doubt this gentleman did not make this statement off the cuff. He has studied the question, and this is a problem that has got to be considered by those responsible to the government for a measure of report, shall I say, recommendation and so on with respect to planning.
I wish to make a few comments now with regard to the Minister without Portfolio whose name is Senator Wallace McCutcheon. I do so because, whatever happens with respect to the bill and whoever is chairman of the new board, we know that the grey eminence in the background will be this senator because he has been conscripted, I would almost say, to rescue the government from the economic morass into which it has sunk. I wish to quote from an article in Maclean's magazine
3000	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board of October 6, 1962 by Ken Lefolli headed, "Can These Men Run Canada Better?" It reads in part as follows:
"Whether the Prime Minister has realized it yet or not, Wally McCutcheon's threat to resign is all he needs to win an argument with anybody in the cabinet, including the Prime Minister himself."
These are the words of a man close to the cabinet who has worked with both McCutcheon and Nowlan. His opinion is the same one held by many other men in the upper ranks of government and business.
"John Diefenbaker has to satisfy Wally McCutcheon or wreck the Conservative party with every businessman in Canada, once and for all" the same man says. "McCutcheon is smart enough to know he's got the lever, and tough enough to pull it."
The article goes on to quote a caption in the Toronto Star of September 30, 1957 which reads: "Praises Canada's Drift Toward Welfare State." The account of a speech McCutcheon had made to the Canadian Club follows. Relating to the vast expansion of government and voluntary health and welfare programs, McCutcheon said:
You might expect me as a businessman to denounce this whole movement... as a dangerous, if not to say, pernicious thing. On the contrary, I regard it not only as one of the greatest achievements of private enterprise-
You know, the achievement is to rescue the casualties of capitalism and keep them alive in the meantime.
-and a modern industrial society, I consider it necessary to the continued existence of both.
Now, there are two different conceptions of social welfare. The one is that it is based on promoting the continued existence of the free enterprise system that makes the welfare society necessary because it props up the free enterprise system. E. P. Taylor has suggested another explanation that takes into account not only McCutcheon's good will-I am not questioning the hon. gentleman's good will. I am sure if a neighbour met him on the way from the parliament buildings to Wellington street and he was starving, the hon. gentleman would give him two bits.
E. P. Taylor has suggested, as I have said, another explanation that takes into account not only McCutcheon's good will, but the more conventional economic motive of selfinterest. Taylor is reported to have said, "What's good for Canada is good for Argus," when he was first asked to comment on McCutcheon's move, "and Wally McCutcheon is good for Canada". We cannot look into the future, and only the future can tell us whether or not that is true. Taylor's paraphrase of Charlie Wilson's statement, "What's good for General Motors is good for America", is less laughable than the original.
This afternoon one of our friends opposite in the Social Credit party made a very interesting speech. He showed the same concern


as other members of this house with our economic and social problems. He was complaining of the system. I give the hon. gentlemen credit. I am sure their hearts are in the right place, but they see us through a glass darkly. I am sure the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) will like that scriptural allusion. He was also complaining about the system. He really wants a form of planning, but he will not use the word. He substitutes the word "orientation". I think that is a good exercise in semantics. He used the word "orientation" when he wanted planning and would not use that word.
However, I thought the hon. gentleman's speech and the approach by the sponsors of this bill clearly indicated that the planning they envisage will be very different from the planning we consider necessary to provide permanent economic stability for Canada. We do not overlook the difficulty. We are not suggesting there is some complete, overnight solution. We are suggesting a change of direction with regard to our approach to these questions.
Last evening, I listened to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) with great interest. He talked about the prosperity that this government had brought to Canada. We find that in 1962 the profits of the major companies in Canada were considerably increased. I am not going to take the time of the house to deal with the figures. Possibly some other member of this group will. Profits were considerably increased. While Canada and Canadians generally are suffering certain economic disadvantages, and while small businessmen and workers are unemployed, including farmers and others, the profit ratio rose. At the same time we have something over 400,000 people unemployed at the present time.
At the same time, the minister said we have got to find ways and means of increasing production. They will not find a solution to this question until they accept their responsibilities as representatives of the people of Canada in this connection. I should like to make another reference to this question of planning and the approach of those who are now using the word. In the Gazette of December 11, 1962, there is a report of a speech by R. A. Emerson, vice president of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The article reads in part:
Master plan for economy Is opposed.
C.P.R. Vice President R. A. Emerson of Montreal said Monday Canada needs to plan for the future but must avoid at all costs having its economic life ordered and predetermined according to a master plan.
He said:
I have interpreted the remarks of the Minister of Finance in the house to mean that the national

economic development board is intended to provide an advisory service and, more particularly, to look ahead, to detect the trend of things to come and to recommend policies for government to assist in achieving economic development.
The article reads:
Mr. Emerson said a planned economy must interfere with the normal functions of the market place.
What he means is, interfere with the normal decisions of the large corporations of this country. I think these remarks by this gentleman indicate that their approach to planning and the approach of this government to planning is opposed to ours. It is the same attitude as we have had towards planning in every direction. They are willing to have a measure of planning, provided there is no interference with the vested interests in this country.
I want to refer for a moment or two to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and to his support for the principle of the bill. I always listen with interest to the hon. member for Essex East when he speaks with his organ-like tone. He gave his blessing to the principle of the bill, singing seven-fold amens to the minister's statement on the principle. You know, he is an impressive speaker, the hon. member for Essex East. I remember a few sessions ago sitting in the house when the minister spoke for some 40 minutes. I walked out to the front entrance, and a gentleman from Texas went to the front door just as there was a clergyman coming in. The Texan went up to this clergyman and said, "Sir, can you tell me the name of this cathedral"? This illustrates that the hon. member for Essex East is such an impressive speaker he causes people to believe they are in a cathedral.
Why did this hon. member endorse the principle of the bill and then later on make some qualifying comments? The reason is that the party on the government side of the house and the party on the opposite side of the house, the Liberal party, both believe in the free enterprise system as practised to date. However, there are a lot of humane members amongst these parties and they are quite willing to spend a bit of money to rescue the casualties of this system. Now, those who feel that the progressive Liberals worship on the altar of free enterprise propped up by the welfare state-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I regret that the clock has imposed its sanction upon the hon. member and we must now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
Divorce Bills PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: May
I ask the consent of the house to give precedence to item No. 373 on today's order paper, which stands in my name? This is Bill No. S-10.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Marquette seeks unanimous approval of the house to advance item 373, which is the second reading of Bill No. S-10, to incorporate the Ukrainian Canadian Foundation of Taras Shevchenko.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READING


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-10, to incorporate the Ukrainian Canadian Foundation of Taras Shevchenko.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill SD-4, for the relief of Mildred Dawson Meakins-Mr. Mandziuk-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On Clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words this afternoon on this particular petition. I should like to again point out to the committee that people in the province of Quebec are faced with certain problems that do not normally arise in the province from which I come. I think these problems are worth some consideration by the committee. In looking over the evidence of this particular petition I find attached a number of documents. There is the marriage certificate and several other documents, including a settlement by the Superior Court of the province of Quebec as to the maintenance of the children. I think there is strong evidence here that this is one of the things the committee should look into. However, I should like to refer the committee to the fact that attached to this petition is an additional document that sometimes is attached to petitions, though not very often. In this particular case it is a document that was tabled originally in the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, and it is a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
The marriage certificate is here. The marriage was registered in the church of St. Andrew and St. Paul, in Montreal, on June 8, 1939. There is also attached a document which is a contract in a legal sense. I think this warrants some consideration. We are all well aware of the fact-and this is something that we have deplored on many occasions-that in the province of Quebec women have little right to property. In the first place, this contract contains a stipulation as to the ownership by the lady of

Divorce Bills
property of her own, so that the property she brings into the marriage will remain her own. Therefore if something happens, this property will be under her administration and will be separate from the property of her husband. The second section of the contract, however, reads this way:
The sum of $25,000 to be paid to the future wife by the future husband, his heirs and legal representatives within three months after the dissolution of the said marriage, with the right to him to make payments on account during the said marriage, either by investments in the name of the said future wife, by mortgage or hypothec upon or the purchase of immovable property, or in any other way.
It goes on to say:
Should the said future husband during the said marriage become insolvent, the said future wife shall thereupon have the right to claim and demand payment of the said sum of $25,000 or any part thereof remaining unpaid-


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the rule as to relevancy has come into play with respect to the quotation he is now making. I thought I should now caution him about the reference to marital settlements or to maintenance or disposition of any children of the marriage, because these are matters that are not within the jurisdiction of the federal government but are, rather, within the strict jurisdiction of the provincial government concerned, and are therefore not applicable or related to the bill which is under consideration.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would humbly disagree that they are not under consideration. The point I wish to make involves collusion. I say that this bill is not in the public interest, and it is not in the public interest because of the inclusion of this section in the contract. In this particular case I think it will be shown quite clearly that the incompetence of the other place, the committees of the other place and this house to deal with this particular matter-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again, but there should be no reflection on the other place at any time in the course of debate, as he well realizes.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would submit that I have not reflected on the other place, but just on our ability to handle legal matters, with regard to which we are not competent or equipped to handle. I intended no reflection upon the other place other than that.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The word "incompetence" was used and that was the word upon which I rose.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this contract also includes this section:
But it is further agreed that in the event of the future wife predeceasing the future husband during the said marriage, the said sum of $25,000 or any investments or payments which may have been made on account thereof, and also all insurances on his life effected or which may hereafter be effected for her benefit or payable to her, shall return to and be the property of the future husband, without the heirs of the future wife having any right therein or claim thereto.
I say that we cannot grant this divorce if it is established that it is against the interests of the nation. If it is against the principles of justice and the crown, this divorce cannot be granted. I suggest that in these cases the petitioner must call the defendant and prove that collusion has not taken place, because in this instance, for that one evening of adultery this woman has been paid $25,000. That is probably an even more expensive piece of seduction than happened in the days of Cleopatra. I suggest that this is not in the interests of the public, and there are laws and regulations under laws which indicate that this is so. I suggest that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that this did not happen. Because this was an uncontested case we can only assume that when the woman went out and committed the adultery which resulted in this divorce action, she was being paid the sum of $25,000 for that adultery. I also suggest that it may be even worse than that. If we read this contract we find that the payment can be started before the divorce action takes place. It may be that there is an added inducement to commit adultery in order to accomplish the end that would result in divorce.
I have no objection, and I expect that most hon. members have no objection, to the fact that the first part of the contract is written in this way. It is the right of the province to decide how the disposition of property should be arrived at between its citizens, having regard to civil rights. But I think we must consider the interests of the nation and the public good, and the fact that you cannot make arrangement for an offence to be committed before the offence takes place. This is something that is well recognized by lawyers, who understand these things much better than I do. It is unfortunate that I have not the legal training or the knowledge that would allow me to cite the cases in which this principle has been established-


Mr. Crestohl:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


William Arnold Peters: -but it is a fact that there are cases where separation agreements-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The hon. member for Cartier has risen on a point of order.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, perhaps to enlighten the hon. member, notwithstanding his agitation about the document which he read to the committee, unfortunately the committee cannot consider it. That is a premarital contract. Whether the hon. member likes it or not, this is a premarital contract passed before the proper authorities in the province of Quebec and the house cannot pronounce itself one way or another in any manner which could affect that contract. It is a contract which deals purely with rights and properties within the province and for this reason I submit the hon. member is entirely out of order. If the hon. member has no other matter to raise, I suggest this should be pointed out to him, since the house has no jurisdiction whatsoever over this aspect of the question. I do not wish to pronounce myself as to the conclusions he is drawing. They may be proper or improper. The point is that if we consider them we would be dealing with a matter which is entirely within the jurisdiction of a province and, therefore, this committee should not pronounce on it in any way.


Mr. Scott:: On the point of order, I should like to disagree with the last speaker and urge you to allow my hon. friend from Timis-kaming to continue. I may say that I disagree completely with him and wish to urge the committee to support the bill, when I get an opportunity to do so.
The agreement to which my hon. friend is referring is an actual part of the evidence upon which the other place reached its conclusion with regard to the granting of this divorce, so I do not see how we could be precluded from discussing the evidence which was considered in the other place as a basis for the decision reached in connection with this bill. If we are not to be allowed to discuss the evidence, I think we are precluded from discussing this matter at all. I am sure any solicitor would take the view that in discussing the merits of the bill we are entitled to look at the evidence upon which a decision to pass it is based, and for that reason and also because a serious charge against these people has been made-a charge I intend to repudiate-I think the hon. member should be allowed to continue.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The committee has before it clause 1 of Bill No. SD-4 which reads as follows:
The said marriage is hereby dissolved and shall be henceforth null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
When there is a question of the administration of justice within a province and of a contract made within the jurisdiction of that province, a civil contract made under a type
Divorce Bills
of law which is different from that which has application from the viewpoint of the federal government, I have great difficulty in accepting that as relevant in a discussion of a simple clause such as I have quoted. This is where I am finding my difficulty.


William Arnold Peters: I am basing my argument on the contention that this divorce, if allowed, would not be in the public interest, in the same light as collusion or other things which are definite bars to the granting of divorce petitions. These documents are not documents which are solely in my possession. They are documents which are in the possession of the house. They are not separate from this particular divorce application; they are attached to the official documents and are part of them. I suggest that though collusion may have taken place in the province of Quebec where the law of the province of Quebec as to collusion or domicile applies, when the plaintiff appears before parliament asking for the divorce he must abide by the regulations which apply to the granting of divorce in the dominion of Canada under the legislation setting up the House of Commons and the Senate as a divorce court.
While I am not making any comment on this evidence as it relates to the property settlement, I am drawing the attention of the committee to this because it relates to what I would consider as being an absolute bar to the granting of this divorce, specifically the existence of conditions which would lead one to speculate as to what might have happened in the field of collusion.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The chairman and the committee of the whole are not bound by any admission or rejection of evidence by the other place or by another committee. If I were hearing the case myself, my view of a civil contract would be that this is completely extraneous. This view is prompted by the fact that there is no jurisdiction here for us to look at it at all, being a matter within the sole jurisdiction of a province. For this reason it appears to me that any reference to it is completely out of order as the bill is before the Chair in its present state. I am willing to hear more argument on the point but I might say this, that in many instances exhibits are filed before a committee which are completely irrelevant to the cause which that committee is trying to determine, which is, in this instance, whether or not there is evidence to support a decree under clause 1 of the bill before us.


Reid Scott: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, surely on reflection that line of reasoning cannot stand up. You have here before

Divorce Bills
you a bill saying we should dissolve a marriage. Presumably the opinion has been advanced that it should be dissolved. In order for us to decide whether or not consent should be given to the passage of this bill, surely we are entitled to look at the evidence which was laid before the other place whose committee considered this bill in great particularity. Are you suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that we are not entitled to consider any of the evidence laid before the other place? I should be glad to hear just what you think we can and cannot discuss in measures of this kind.
As you well know, Mr. Chairman, even if there is evidence sufficient to support the passage of the bill, any member can raise what he considers to be a bar to the passage of the legislation, notwithstanding the existence of such evidence. Any court in the land will permit various issues to be raised in divorce matters which constitute a bar to a decree even if there is adequate evidence to support such a decree. That is what my hon. friend is attempting to do. He is saying that as part of the evidence properly admitted in the other place there is material which constitutes a bar to the passage of the bill, notwithstanding that there may be perfectly good grounds-and in this case I am satisfied the evidence is adequate. He wants to raise a serious matter in his mind which would normally bar the passage of this bill in an ordinary court if what he says is true. In these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, how can you preclude him from referring to the evidence upon which he must make his claim?


William Arnold Peters: May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to a passage appearing in Dominion Law Reports, Volume 3, 1957, page 321? This is the case of Woods v. Woods which was heard before the Ontario supreme court (Mr. Justice Rose, J.) on April 22, 1927. The heading is: "Divorce and Separation VIII-Separation agreement-Founded partly on illegal consideration-void."
A separation agreement founded partly on a legal and partly on an illegal consideration cannot be held valid as to such of it as is legal and invalid as to the rest, but must be held void in toto. (Eastview v. R.C.E.C. Ottawa (1918) 47 D.L.R. 47, 44 O.L.R. 284, applied)
What that means I do not know.
In this case if the marriage contract in effect at the time is shown to have something wrong with it, is shown to have an illegal section to it, then it is void. I believe this applies to the whole question of divorce. If part of a case is illegal, then so is the rest. I am sure that if we indicated that in this case the detectives had perjured themselves, and can prove to your satisfaction, Mr. Chairman, then that will be a bar to the granting of this divorce. If we can indicate there is

some doubt about it, that the contract establishing this marriage is not legal, then the divorce action would be void.
I think that we should look at this in light of the over-all picture. I think it is an established fact that the institution of marriage is for the good of the nation. The institution of marriage is a very worthy part of our common law. For this reason, if this petitioner found that his wife had committed adultery and that he had a bar to this divorce, then the sum of $25,000 seems to be an unusual penalty for him to pay. I suggest that the common good is not going to be served if this petitioner is going to have to pay $25,000 to do what other people would do without paying $25,000 costs, and that this was put in in the beginning.
There is a case in English law which unfortunately I do not have before me, but it is similar to cases I do have before me where the circumstances are a little different. A man asked a woman to live with him under a common law arrangement, and he agreed that if he left her within ten years he would pay her $50,000. When this case was taken to court the court held that this was against the common interest, because the setting up of the contract was not in the national interest or for the public good. I note that the contract says that it will be paid in lieu of dissolution of the marriage. There are, of course, two ways of dissolving a marriage. One is by death, which is the normal way, and the second is by divorce. The contract says that should the husband predecease the wife the money will not have to be paid to the heirs of the wife. In other words, if death was the factor dissolving the marriage the $25,000 would not be paid to the woman's estate; it is only paid during her lifetime. Therefore, the conclusion is that the only reason for the $25,000 is that the marriage will be dissolved by divorce.
Mr. Chairman, I maintain that if this is so then it is open to many abuses. I am not prepared to state that this is the case because I think you would have to know something about the facts other than the contract alone. But I do believe that this case should be referred back to the committee and that the committee be asked to call the respondent before them so they can ascertain whether or not there was such an arrangement or collusion so as to obtain this divorce. I think this is part of the responsibility of the petitioner, because he has brought this case before us. If what I say turns out to be the fact, we cannot grant this divorce because there will be the absolute bar of collusion: there will be an arrangement. If we are to

be honest at all in these divorce cases I think we are under an obligation to call before us the respondent, if necessary by subpoena, to ascertain on behalf of the good of Canada and the law we are representing whether or not this is the fact. This is one of the reasons why I said we appear to be in conflict here, because no question was raised by our own committee on this question, and as far as I can ascertain no question was raised in the other place. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this case should be returned to the committee for further investigation, with the direction that the parties be recalled before the committee to discuss this question of divorce settlement.
Mr. Chairman, there are other cases on this, and I should like to read one contained in the Dominion Law Reports on page 323.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I have allowed the hon. member some additional time because of interruptions as a result of points of order which were raised. The quoting of authorities of law, which has been allowed, and which are authorities on the common law, not on the French civil code which is applicable in the province of Quebec, tend to be an attempt on the part of the hon. member to construe this committee as a court, which it is not. I just refer to that before I call on the hon. member for Danforth.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: May I just ask the hon. member a question?


Gordon Campbell Chown: The time of the hon. member has expired. The committee would have to give unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am wondering if the hon. member could tell the house just what federal statute this pre-marital contract appears to violate. I have never heard of any actual federal statute which provides for the dissolution of marriage.


William Arnold Peters: The law which it stems from is to be found in volume 23 of the United Kingdom statutes, 1857 Victoria, which act was established to amend the law relating to divorce and matrimonial causes in England. This law applied to Canada through confederation under the British North America Act, under which act sole power was given to the federal government in matters of matrimony and divorce.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a position directly opposed to that of the hon. member for Timiskaming and to urge the committee to disregard almost everything he said, and as a consequence of that unanimously to pass the bill and grant
Divorce Bills
the relief asked for. The difficulty of the hon. member for Timiskaming is that he has all the facts backwards. When you start out with all the facts backwards you are liable to reach the wrong conclusion. The hon. member for Timiskaming also has a limited knowledge of the law, as he has demonstrated this afternoon. This also makes it difficult for him to adjudicate upon judical matters. That is one of the reasons why we have complained about this procedure of handling divorce and have taken the position that none of us are really competent to consider matters of this kind. There is this serious aspect to what the hon. member for Timiskaming has said. He is making a serious charge against some very responsible people.


An hon. Member:: Very rich people.


Reid Scott: Well, they could still be
responsible even though they are rich. I should like to dissociate myself completely from the allegations he has made against these people. After having reviewed the file I desire to say that I wish all divorces were as good as this one. The evidence is excellent. Adequate provision has been made for the wife. Adequate provision has been made for the children. There is no reason in the world why this divorce could not go through.
The hon. member for Timiskaming has stated that here there is an ante-nuptial contract under the terms of which the wife is to receive $25,000 in the event of dissolution of marriage. He has said that because the wife committed adultery she should not get the $25,000. The fact is that it was not the wife who committed adultery but that it was the husband who did so; and it is the wife who was bringing action against the husband because of his conduct, and not the reverse position. Hence any suggestion of collusion would be a grave slight on the woman's integrity and should not be regarded by the House of Commons at all.
However, in reviewing these ante-nuptial contracts, Mr. Chairman, one is impressed with the whole procedure. In a way I wish that this type of premarital agreement could be introduced in all of the provinces. I think it would have a beneficial effect. The people of Quebec are to be congratulated upon this very sensible provision, namely that before young couples enter marriage they should enter into an agreement setting out what their views are, what their property is and who is to own what. The whole procedure of young couples going into marriage sitting down and deciding what their attitude towards marriage is going to be is a very sensible one. Indeed, I think if it were followed everywhere it would be very beneficial.

Divorce Bills


Gordon Campbell Chown: With respect, I interrupt the hon. member in order to point out to him that, in his own remarks, he has supported the opinion of the Chair that to refer to contracts which are within the jurisdiction sole of a particular province and to urge that they become part of the body of the law in any other province is to deal with a matter that has no relation to the bill which is before the committee.


Reid Scott: Quite the contrary, Mr. Chairman. I would not wish you so to construe my remarks. What I said initially still stands. If the charges made by the hon. member for Timiskaming were true and if this contract were one which is contrary to public policy or public good and would constitute a bar, he is perfectly entitled to bring it here as he has done, and to argue that it constitutes a bar to the granting of a decree and that we should refuse to pass the bill. My position is contrary to his. I still assert that it is perfectly valid to bring a document here and argue it. What I am saying is that he is wrong in his conclusions. Since they may wish to agree with him, I am attempting to convince hon. members that they should disregard his opinion and should accept the validity of the argument that this contract, while it is part of the evidence, is not the kind of contract which would constitute a bar to the marriage itself and that therefore we should proceed. I would not wish you to construe my remarks as in any way agreeing with the ruling which you were about to make, Mr. Chairman, at an earlier stage of the debate.
If I might just continue for a moment or two I should like to do so. The reason that I would suggest to the committee that we proceed with this divorce, notwithstanding the talk about the $25,000, is that obviously in a case of this kind the plaintiff, who is the wife, married the husband many years ago, lived with him for about 20 years, raised his children, and looked after his home. It seems to me that it is in consideration of that fact that she is to receive the $25,000. She has surrendered up any other chances of marriage, presumably; she has surrendered any right to acquire any additional property, perhaps; and for that reason the $25,000 is being paid. Actually, it is a very wise and sound provision. For this reason I would suggest to the committee that this particular bill be passed; that the allegations made by the hon. member for Timiskaming are without any foundation in fact or in law; that his conclusions are erroneous; that the bill is a perfectly good and proper one, with proper provision for the children and the wife; and that we should proceed to give the bill passage at the present time.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Danforth. I certainly bow to his legal knowledge. I am inclined to agree with him that the fact that a contract is in existence may not be a bad thing. However, my original contention still holds. Although I do not wish to pursue it, I should like to point out that this question was asked in the other place by Mr. Wilson. I am referring to page 11 of the evidence:
Q. Before you were married did you enter into an ante-nuptial contract with your husband? A. Yes.


Mr. Wilson:: May I file this document?


Gordon Campbell Chown: You may if you wish to prove it, certainly.
By Mr. Wilson:
Q. Would you take communication of this authentic notarial copy of an ante-nuptial contract? May it be filed as an exhibit?


Gordon Campbell Chown: This will not in any way adversely affect your case; it may possibly have some validity.
It was filed. Then we find the following questions:
By Mr. Wilson:
Q. In virtue of that contract, your contract agreed to pay you the amount of $25,000? A. Yes.
Q. Did you enter into an agreement with your husband since you instituted proceedings against him in the Quebec courts whereby he agreed to pay you this amount? A. Yes.
Q. Which he has not yet paid? A. No.
Q. Will you look at this agreement, dated March 22, 1961 and state whether it bears your signature and your husband's signature? A. Yes.
(Agreement filed, marked Exhibit No. 4)
Q. Has there been any collusion existing between you and your husband in connection with these proceedings? A. No, none.
Q. Have you connived in the commission of these proceedings? A. No.
Q. Have you condoned the misconduct alleged in your petition? A. No, I haven't.
Q. Since your husband committed the adultery? A. No.
Q. You have not lived with him or seen him or had anything to do with him since? A. No.
Incidentally Mr. Chairman, let me interject that I think Perry Mason would say that was a very leading question, and I would imagine most of his proceedings would say that question should be inadmissible. The answer still was no. To continue reading:
Q. And he has lived separate and apart from you since 1961? A. Yes.
Q. You personally have no knowledge of the adultery alleged in the petition? No personal knowledge? A. No.
Then he goes on to what led to the breakup. In reading this evidence, Mr. Chairman, you will note that while there does not seem to be the same concern in the other place that I have exercised, there is a certain amount of concern in admitting these contracts because of the terms of the contracts. I suggest that if the contract had been discussed and if the possible terms of it had been known, maybe more consideration would have been given than was given. However, that raises a particular point.

The point has also been made that the wife in this case is suing for divorce. That may only mean that the respondent in this case is at least a gentleman as well as being able to pay $25,000.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Highly unlikely.


William Arnold Peters: Well, that may or may not be, but it is quite normal to look at those cases where the wife files a petition even more closely than those cases where the husband files a petition because Canadian men as a whole are gentlemen and they quite often make the arrangements instead of leaving the wife in this very unenviable position. I continue:
By Senator Burchill:
Q. What led to the break-up?
A. His behavior was very odd, and the medical trips were very long and I asked him if this was the case, and he said yes, it was.
By the Chairman:
Q. If what was the case?
A. If he was interested in someone else.
Q. You asked him point blank if he was out with some other woman?
A. That is right.
Q. And he admitted the fact?
A. Yes.
By Senator Cameron:
Q. How long had this been going on?
A. Oh, quite a while.
By Senator Gershaw:
Q. Where was your husband born?
A. He was born in Montreal.
Q. Has he lived in Montreal all his life?
A. Yes. He was in New York for a couple of years interning and in Boston one year doing graduate work.
Q. As far as you know does he intend to continue to live in Montreal?
A. As far as I know, yes.
By the Chairman:
Q. Is there no hope of any foregiveness, or reconciliation between you?
A. No.
Q. Your children are nearly all grown up?
A. Yes. The boy is 21.
Q. With the exception of the youngest one they can all look after themselves now?
A. They can, and they are planning to get off about their own lives.


Leon David Crestohl: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the Chair has ruled under similar circumstances that it is pointless to read all the evidence to the committee. Members of the committee received copies of the evidence and are presumed to have read it, and I do not think it helps the committee to any degree at all to have the evidence read at length now. Perhaps it does help to exhaust the very precious hour in which many people are hoping to have their cases dealt with. I am sure, however, that the hon. member does not mean to be unfair and that his motive simply cannot be to prevent other bills from being dealt with. As I say, I am
Divorce Bills
sure that is not his motive and I am also sure he will realize, as the committee certainly does, that extensive reading of the evidence is prejudicial to the other bills on the order paper and holds up consideration of them unduly.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The matter of holding up other business of the house is, of course, within the determination of the members of the committee themselves. However, the use of extensive quotations, as the hon. member realizes, from documents or from other records or minutes of parliament, especially such documents as are within the knowledge of the committee if they so desire, is not permitted. The other question, which is within his own determination, is whether or not it is in good taste to quote extensively from evidence of this nature with respect to a divorce, and I leave that to his own good judgment. But I do caution him against quoting extensively from such minutes because, as he realizes, the committee rules do not permit this.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I will not ask the hon. member to withdraw what I considered to be an unfair remark. However, if I were in a school and were the teacher I would ask for a show of hands of those that have studied this case and have read the evidence. I would imagine that the hon. member who has raised the point of order is one of those who would have to stand up and say that he knows absolutely nothing about this case except that these people come from the province of Quebec and probably from the area of Montreal.
I believe that in looking at this legislation just as any other we have to give some consideration to what we think are errors in it. I am interested in the way that this contract fits into this case and I hope to convince the committee that the contract as entered into constitutes a bar to the granting of this divorce because I believe that the terms of the contract are not in the public interest or for the public good.
I am not opposed to the remarks made by the hon. member for Danforth. I believe he is perfectly correct in saying that certain contracts are worth while. I am certainly very happy to find that one of the documents has to do with the maintenance of the children. This is a matter to which so many members of the house do not give any consideration at all and in fact raise points of order to the effect that we cannot even discuss it, although children are involved in the petitions that we handle and in my view are a very fundamental part of federal jurisdiction and responsibility with regard to divorce and marriage.

Divorce Bills
I believe that the committee of the other place gave some consideration to this point and that is why I am interested in studying the information that was brought out there. If members are going to come to a decision on this particular case without knowing anything about it and object to the information being brought forward, not with regard to divorce in general but this particular case, I suggest they are doing a disservice to the people they represent, and I do not think any member of the committee will stand up and say that he wants to do that. The chairman of the committee of the other place continued with these questions:
Q. Witness, did you at any time have any conversation with your husband about this whole affair?
A. Well, I did this time, yes.
Q. When?
A. I asked him.
Q. But when was this?
A. About a year and a half ago.
Q. You asked him what?
A. I asked him if there was another woman, and he said yes there was.
By Senator Gershaw:
Q. And you lived with him since then as man and wife?
A. We thought we would get over Christmas.
There are a number of members who are lawyers and the member who has raised the objection is one of them. I would ask him to consider this particular question.
Q. And you lived with him since then as man and wife?
This was after she had been told there was another woman involved.
A. We thought we would get over Christmas.
This in itself is a bar, Mr. Chairman. If an offence takes place and one of the parties knows about it and continues to live with the other party as man and wife then, as all lawyers well know, there is no basis for granting a divorce. If the relationship of man and wife is re-established the original offence is eliminated in law and this is an absolute bar to a divorce being obtained on that basis. Yet some say: Let us pass the bill. I wonder whether they would stand before the bar and say the same thing.
By the Chairman:
Q. How far did he go-did he just simply tell you there was another woman in the case-is that all he said?
A. Yes.
Q. He did not make any admissions as to any sexual relation or anything of that kind, did he?
A. Well, it was assumed.
Q. I am afraid it is the sort of thing we cannot assume, except where there is pretty substantial corroborative evidence?
A. There was.
Q. What was that corroborative circumstantial evidence?
A. I think when he spent week ends with her one could assume that.
[Mr. Peters. 1
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because the medical meetings would end Thursday or Friday. He said he was spending week ends with her.
Q. He told you point blank that he has spent the week end with this woman?
A. Yes.
Some members say: Let us get on with it; you are only holding it up. What kind of respect have they for the law, in which they are trained and I am not? I wonder. I think each member has an obligation to the full extent of his ability to see that justice is done to every person in this country and I think that justice cannot be assumed in this case by looking the other way.
This is not a case of turning the other cheek. I refer again to the evidence:
Q. Well, of course, he could do that and still there would be no sexual relations between them?
A. I think it is quite unlikely.
Q. That may be but we want a little more than that. Did he admit to you he used to spend weekends with her?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Did he do that more than once?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were these medical meetings held that he went to?
A. At various places.
Q. In the United States?
A. Yes.
Q. In New York?
A. Yes.
By the Chairman:
Q. Did he tell you who the woman was?
A. Eventually, but not before he left the house.
Q. The position is that he admitted and told you he was spending his week ends with a woman?
A. Yes.
Q. Ultimately did he tell you her name?
A. Yes.
Q. And that name was?
A. Do I have to say her name?
Q. If he told you yes, of course.
A. Mrs. Lever.
Q. We have no allegation of any offence with Mrs. Lever. You do not know anything about this woman Margaret Bryant do you?
A. No.
Q. Nothing whatever?
A. No.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we come to the point in the evidence where it has been established by questioning in the other place that before the marriage broke up there had been a reference to a mysterious lady who spent week ends with the doctor after medical conventions in various places. Well, this divorce is obtained on evidence given by detectives. I have only the normal hesitation about accepting their evidence that every court in the country would have. All documents concerning divorce contain a warning that the evidence of a detective be given very close scrutiny, particularly when it is not documented by pictures or other forms of corroborative evidence. In this case the respondent and corespondent did not appear to give evidence.

National Economic Development Board
It is surprising that in this particular case, where the marriage has ended and where the name of the woman is known after the wife has left bed and board, that then the detectives come into the picture'and it is not the same woman at all.
Another bar to divorce, Mr. Chairman, may be the fact that the person obtaining the divorce is of such an unsavory character that he could be classed as being promiscuous. In the case of a woman, if she is engaged in prostitution, this may be a bar to the granting of a divorce. Well, now, we see a complete change from the situation which obtained at the time of the separation. Now, we come to the evidence of the detectives and it is completely separated from the evidence we have had before and involves a different party. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this would make one wonder if over a period of time this doctor, whom I am sure is highly qualified and is an outstanding citizen, would change to another woman after apparently liking this one first mentioned for such a period of time.
Now, there is a stage where we come into the same type of set-up that is involved in the ordinary divorce mill. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this takes us back to the contract again and whether or not there were inducements for this type of action. The divorce is established by having private investigators. They both gave evidence, and both live in Montreal. They classify themselves as investigators, but no questions were asked as to whether or not they were licensed in the province in which they operate or in Montreal. The investigator is shown a picture of the doctor and then this question is asked:
Q. Would you tell the committee of the investigation you made and what you discovered?
A. We were first requested to proceed with the investigation in the latter part of April or beginning of May, 1961 and we were given certain information as to his residence and so on.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I would presume this might involve the fact that many week ends were spent with a particular lady. I would think he would just have to find out when the next medical convention was going to be held, go along and find out for himself if the statements being made by the wife were true. This is not the way it was done.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Reid Scott: I would not want the case to be left in this condition. The hon. member for Timiskaming has referred to this business of the ante-nuptial contract. As most members know, in the province of Quebec this is a most necessary thing because of the problem of community property. If a husband and wife marry and no contract is entered
into, then they have what is called community property. Under those circumstances, if the husband got into financial difficulty, all the property would be available in settlement of his debts. If the wife gets into trouble financially, all the husband's assets are available. It is largely for this reason that these contracts are used.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order; the hon. member is breaking the rule of relevancy, I am afraid, in giving a discourse on the law of Quebec. However, it is now six o'clock so I will leave the chair and report progress.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock, and I do now leave the chair.



NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nowlan for the second reading of Bill No. C-87, to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned owing to the onset of private members hour I had just completed making some complimentary remarks about the ability of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to distil the elixir of the English language in euphonic tones. I was also dealing with the question of the similarity of the point of view of the Liberal and Conservative parties with respect to planning, as against our proposals; their insistence that planning could be undertaken without any interference with the vested interests. I say this because in principle both the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals worship at the altar of free enterprise propped up by the welfare state, as they understand it; that is, as a premium paid by capitalism on an insurance policy, by the government, against abnormal discontent. There is no question about it, Mr. Speaker, a capitalist society historically has depended upon armaments to consume surplus production and overcome economic depression. That is proven by the statements of a great
3010	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board number of leading manufacturers in the United States regarding the effect the sudden, if it were possible-and we wish it were-* onslaught of peace (would have on the American economy. In our opinion, freedom and security can only be obtained by new concepts of society, by a new purpose, new objectives, and a new sense of values.
I know my time is expiring, Mr. Speaker, and I am trying to push my speech together. There are three types of planning as we see it. First of all there is opportunistic planning, which is carried on for a temporary effect or for a particular purpose, as evidenced by the planning of the Sons of Freedom in my constituency quite recently. When not long ago the Prime Minister visited Kootenay West, some of the Sons of Freedom ladies undressed in his presence. I was talking to a friend of one of them afterwards and saying that we objected to that sort of thing because there should be respect paid to our Prime Minister, regardless of our party politics. One of them explained, "You know, Mr. Herridge, this was different. They undress to protest, historically, against materialistic civilization. This time, Mr. Herridge, they said they undressed to also show the Canadian people what they will be like in four years' time if he is elected again."
Then there is operose planning, which is a form of reluctant or irksome planning undertaken to create a short term political effect. That is what we believe the planning in this bill provides for, a very short term political effect. It creates an illusion in response to a public demand for a public necessity and need. As against that we have co-operative, or effective planning, the type to which this group subscribes.
With all the high sounding language in the minister's speech and in the bill, after its passage we must remember that the Iron Ore Company of Canada will continue to export $500 million worth of Canadian iron ore annually to the United States and Europe, and Canada will continue to import $2,500 million worth of steel products. That is the situation we want to overcome with our type of planning. At the same time, the federal government of Canada is proposing to permit the export of vast quantities of power from the Columbia river-I cannot help referring to this-and with it vast quantities of water that will be required by future generations in Canada. As another illustration of what the orthodox planners mean, I notice in the Nelson daily News of Wednesday, November 28, 1962 a headline, "Shrum sees hydro power top export". This is one of the great planners in British Columbia, according to some points of view. What does this news item say? It says:


Gordon M. Shrum, chairman of the British Columbia hydro and power authority, said Tuesday British Columbia's greatest export in the future will be hydroelectric power.
We aim at the type of planning that will keep that power in Canada to provide jobs for Canadians, instead of providing jobs outside our country. Although we listen to all this twaddle about planning, after the passage of this bill, without a doubt, we will continue to export profits, interest, dividends, power, water and jobs in vast quantities. This party believes in the type of planning which will, first of all, conserve, develop and utilize the natural resources of Canada so that they will meet the needs of present and future generations-planning with respect for people, natural resources, wild life and so on.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about medical planning.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You will be told all about that later.
We believe in the type of planning which will provide a basic economic security for all who are willing to contribute their labour or their services according to their abilities. I have had some experience with paper planners. I realize there is ground for criticism in some cases. But we believe in a type of planning under which there is consultation with the people concerned. Consent, consultation and participation are essential for effective planning in a democratic society.
Previous speakers have outlined some proposals and means for reaching this end and I do not intend to take the time of the house by repeating them. This is an important question for members of this group, and there are others who wish to speak. We aim to utilize this planning of material things to lay the foundation for a spiritual and cultural life in the broadest sense of the word presently denied to multitudes. We do not believe that material security or prosperity are the end of all things. They are merely a foundation upon which can be built a real spiritual and cultural life based on a reverence for all creation. In a totalitarian state there can be security without freedom. In a democratic society there cannot be freedom without security. If there is no freedom from want there can be no freedom from fear, no freedom of worship and no freedom of speech. When a democratic society provides economic freedom it not only provides freedom from fear of the future but freedom, also, from the follies of the past and the present with their disabilities and dangers. When we plan to raise the economic level-


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am sorry, also, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), probably the only great landed proprietor left in the house today. I believe the people in his area often refer to him as the baron of the Kootenays. It is very interesting to hear him when he comes down from his mountain estate to deliver polemics against the economic system which permitted his father, and he in his turn, to win and hold thousands of acres as private property.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit an explanation? I am purely a trustee for the nation pending the revolution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 
Mr. Ricard:: You have to read every word of it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: At least I know how to read, which is more than the government whip can say. If they had not been keeping this supposed five-year plan a secret from their own members it is most unlikely that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) who today, I believe, is a parliamentary secretary would have made the remarks he did as quoted by my hon. friend from Essex East (Mr. Martin) in his comments on the subject some weeks ago. This hon. member was quoted in Hansard of May 24, 1960, at page 4179 as saying:
Setting up a national board to develop economic policies would be, in my opinion, setting up a new giant in the field of semi-govemmental bodies which is quite unnecessary,
I think it would have been much more convenient if the cabinet had told their supporters about this five-year plan in order to avoid embarrassment of this type in years to come. Even the Associate Minister of National Defence did not know about this plan, it would appear, from his remarks yesterday. Looking at page 13 of the translation of his remarks I find he said:
For the last five years we have tried, thanks to our national productivity council and to the continuous contacts we have had with men from all spheres of Canadian activity, to find the formulas which would enable us to obtain the splendid success I mentioned earlier.
Just before those remarks, he said:
The proposed economic development board will allow us to find a formula, to find a solution to the problem between labour on the one hand and capital on the other hand. And if this board can fulfil their purpose, it will not have been set up in vain and all should be satisfied.
In other words, the minister appears to have admitted the failure of what they were trying to have this productivity council do-[DOT] an admission in saying they had been using this council to search for formulas; an admission that any success they may have had in economic matters, no matter how small, was purely by chance.
He suggests that this board, working with people in all segments of the economy, as it
3012	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board should and must, can find means to deal with these various problems-these other things that we are talking about, which previously they had not been able to find means to have worked out, by chance, by formula or otherwise. There is, certainly, an important task before this national economic development board and that is to formulate, at long last, a definite policy of area redevelopment-a policy to deal with the depressed areas of our country, the areas which suffer, unfortunately, from chronic unemployment and which have experienced a movement of industry from them to two or three metropolitan areas, a concentration which has created problems not only for those areas but for the communities which the industries have left behind them. So far we have seen no real program of this type from the present government though they have had every opportunity to formulate, put forward and carry out such a program. Instead, we have had nothing more than what Maurice Jefferies of the Windsor Star has called a "balkan-ized economic aid program." We have had the Atlantic development board, which is a most useful forward step, but for the rest of the country no similar needed program. In fact, the only policy we know of so far is something which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has put into a bill which we have not as yet had an opportunity of discussing as fully as we should. I refer to "manpower mobility incentives." I can only infer that since we have the Atlantic development board for the maritimes, and manpower mobility incentives for some of the other depressed areas of the country, their only policy, and a mighty poor one at that, is to move people away from areas in which they have spent their lives and have their homes rather than carry out a plan for bringing industry into these areas.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Who is going to pay for moving them out?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: You said you are going to pay for moving them out.


Mr. Howe:: Is that not what Gordon said?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: No, he did not say that. In any event, we must certainly develop such a program. The government does not really need to wait for a board, although a board can be a most useful vehicle for this type of program.
Mr. Speaker, these measures are not something which need to be divined by some mystic process; they are already known. I think of programs developed by committees such as that in Windsor, which was put forward by a delegation of mayors a few weeks before Christmas. Unfortunately, the present


government does not seem inclined to respond to these carefully thought out programs of a type such as that proposed not only by this committee of mayors from Windsor, and from maritime communities, and also by groups such as the plant movement council of the united automobile workers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Hon. members opposite may laugh at my reference to the plant movement council of the united automobile workers, but the Minister of Labour put on a great show of pretence in being most interested in the problems which they put forward. These automobile workers in Windsor will be most interested to find by this laughter the true feeling hon. members opposite display about the problems of plant movement.
Mr. Speaker, this true feeling was exhibited in another most unfortunate way when this group of mayors both from the Windsor area and from the maritimes came to present the report of a civic committee in Windsor to a group of members of the cabinet. Present was the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), and although we were supposed to have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) in attendance as well, for some reason not yet explained to me we had instead the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith), an affable gentleman, but not the one it seems to me that the delegation expected to have a chance to talk with on problems of this type. The only answer I can see is that the present government must have recognized that their current policies are pretty sick and so they had the minister of health there to attend to this particular group.
The most unfortunate part of this particular meeting was that when the time came to read the operative portions of the brief in question the spokesman for the group, wishing to save what he thought was the time of some very busy men, indicated that he did not feel it necessary to read this operative portion because he knew that the city clerk of Windsor had apparently sent this brief to them weeks and weeks before the meeting. But to the great shock, amazement and surprise of the delegation they found that these honourable gentlemen from the cabinet who had met with them quite freely admitted that they had not even bothered to take the trouble to read this very brief with its important recommendations. It is not a very good indication of the attitude of the present government toward the question of redevelopment of distressed and depressed areas.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the people of the maritimes, pleased as they are with the

steps which have been taken and which should be taken to develop their own area, would not hesitate one instant to join the programs for their area into one great national program of area redevelopment so that we would have a national policy to deal with questions of this type. This is something, as I say, Mr. Speaker, that we hope the national economic development board will be able to get to work on just as soon as it is set up; and I hope that once this bill is passed we will not have a lapse of two years, as we had with the productivity council, before we have something productive from it.
It is not only necessary to have a definite program put forward with a whole arsenal of measures to deal with the problems of depressed areas. We must also have a government which is ready and willing to put these measures into effect; a government which is willing to set up a definite agency of government to institute these measures equipped with the funds necessary to carry them out. If this is done, then at long last we will begin really to tackle this problem of depressed areas which is holding back our country. If there is a need for national planning at this time, Mr. Speaker, then this planning must be for the purpose of seeing that certain areas of our country do not create a drag on the rest of it; that they have a chance to contribute everything they can to the development of our great nation. If the board does this and if the government carries out its solutions and proposals, we will see something very constructive coming from its work.
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Lamy (St. Maurice-Latleche):: Mr. Speaker, I am not against the setting up of an economic development board, but if we had had competent governments since confederation, we would not need an economic development board. In fact there was no need for such an organization when the country was at war.
In wartime this country was in full prosperity, but in peacetime people are starving in a country as rich as Canada. What kind of a phenomenon is that? In wartime we were living very well and in peacetime we are starving. It is because money came at the rate of industrial production in wartime, and because people had purchasing power and bought our products, which created jobs, and as a result we had prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to show to what extent the economy is now paralysing any initiative. I have in my possession two loans
National Economic Development Board to build houses, two C.M.H.C. loans which represent $12,000. These loans are to be repaid at the rate of $108.00 a month, that is $81.00 in capital and interest, and $27.00 in taxes. Our monetary system is nefarious, in that it paralyses economy. With such loans people are starving, Mr. Speaker. How can you expect a small wage-earner to manage to make both ends meet, when he must make such payments? You know that home building would help us increase the number of jobs, because in such construction, labour represents about 65 per cent.
That is why I would have a suggestion to make to the Canadian government, the effect of which would be to eliminate part of our unemployment problem, to carry out slum-clearance and so forth. Here it is. Last fall, when the economic situation was in a lamentable state, the Diefenbaker government could have allowed construction of family units for small wage-earners by granting them loans from the Bank of Canada without interest, the repayment of which would have been based on their salaries. The lender could have asked a repayment at the rate of 75 per cent of a week's salary a month.
If, for instance, the government had realized that 100,000 houses had to be built during the year, and that the payments thus calculated would have been amortized in 12 or 15 years, I think it would have been advantageous to proceed in such a way. Here is what it would have cost the government, Mr. Speaker. It would have set up a billion dollar fund for the construction of 100,000 housing units, and that sum would have been returned to the government, after having served the population, in allowing them to build 100,000 units, because the payments would have returned to Ottawa. We would then realize that after having created a billion dollars, money alone has been destroyed but not the houses. This is an extraordinary phenomenon. We build 100,000 houses, and we do not destroy them in destroying money, but we are bringing a solution to unemployment, to inadequate housing, and we clear slums. But the older parties, the Grits and the Tories never talk about social legislation because they never give any thought to workers' families. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party was swept out of office in Ottawa, and that is why Mr. Diefenbaker, after having put his talents at the service of the people, lost 60 seats in
3014	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board the last election, and that, in the next one, he will not have 50 left, because Social Credit will then be put in office. If there were 200 Socred administrators, there would be no need of an economic development board, because out of those 200, there are some who are intelligent enough that we would not need the service of an economic development board to get the country into prosperity again, as was done in wartime.
Mr. Speaker, in order to promote a greater economic activity in our country, we shall have to provide our families with increased purchasing power and, to that end, it will be necessary to adjust family allowances according to the cost of living instead of granting starvation allowances in a rich and prosperous country such as ours.
Every time the purchasing power is increased, jobs are being created. That is how everybody is given a job in the end. If we ask that old age pensions be granted at the age of 60 instead of 65, it is because people of 60 and 65 years would then be able to rest before they died and at the same time young people in their twenties could start a family.
For young people from 18 to 25 years of age, there is nothing worse than unemployment. They loiter around in taverns, and grills and just about everywhere because there is nothing else for them to do. And as we know idleness is the root of all evil.
If our older citizens were getting a pension before the age of 70, they could live more decently and their money would contribute to create employment. In fact, it should not be forgotten that each time money is spent, employment is generated.
And this also goes for our people.
Mr. Speaker, this plan will have to be completed by the government by credit facilities through the Bank of Canada.
The government will also have to realize that it will be responsible for financing school boards, municipal, provincial and federal budgets without interest, or at least at cost, so as to relieve the family man from taxes.
Mr. Speaker, if you build a convent at a cost of $1 million with interest based on cost only, it should be quite easy to pay back $1 million plus a few hundred dollars, but if interest at 5 per cent is charged during 20 years, the same convent will cost $2 million, and thus a sum of $2 million has to be paid out while at the outset those responsible for


the project had doubts as to whether they could afford $1 million. Such a situation would not exist under a Social Credit government, for we could use credit from the Bank of Canada and pay interest based on overhead only.
The Canadian people have had more than enough of the older parties and their lack of concern.
Mr. Speaker, the evil afflicting our country today boils down to maintaining the unemployed and his family in idleness. This is a terribly expensive calamity. Why does the government not put these people to work instead of paying them $36 a week for doing nothing? I know some hon. members are going to say: "There is no place for them to work, we have no jobs to give them". But houses, schools, roads and tunnels could be built throughout Canada. And should we not promote the establishment of heavy industry in this country? We should then even have a shortage of labour.
(Text):


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance spoke on this bill on November 27 last he expressed its purpose as follows, as reported at page 2073 of Hansard:
The government is determined that this country will continue to prosper and to grow. It is determined to stimulate the further expansion of our existing industries and to encourage even further the development in Canada of new and efficient industries.
Surely if these admirable objectives, with which all of the hon. members of this house can agree, were attained, we would, although the minister did not quite say so, have a country blessed by full employment. But what we must ask ourselves here and what the people of Canada have a right to know is whether the passage of this bill and its implementation will achieve this admirable aim. The debate to date, I submit, has not been too hopeful. It has concerned itself almost exclusively with the hope that the planning proposed will help to develop new industry. The development of new industry is important but it is only one side of the coin. The rapid relocation of existing manufacturing and servicing industries from old established centres towards a concentration in a few major areas in Canada is having a growing and disastrous effect on the Canadian people. Decisions by management as to plant location have, to the detriment of Canada, been regarded by private industry and by governments, both Liberal and Conservative, as the concern of business alone, despite the fact that the welfare of

National Economic Development Board
entire communities and the lives of thousands of our citizens are affected by the movement of plants and factories. Surely it is time that the desire for profit and competitive advantage which industry hopes to gain when it moves to new locations should be considered and balanced against the responsibility of those same industries to the communities in which they were for so long established.
Unfortunately, if we look at corporation examples or at the view of either the present government or the official opposition when they were in power, and when we see how they discuss this bill, it is obvious that to them profit is still the overriding if not the only motive for every act carried out by the corporations of Canada. This government has no intention of even trying to blunt this unconscionable drive for profit at any cost by Canadian business.
Corporate decisions on plant location have had for the people of Canada and our economy consequences many times greater than any decision of democratically elected governments, whether federal, provincial or municipal. In this bill or in the speeches which have been made in this house by representatives of the government or of the official opposition explaining their position, there is nothing to indicate that the situation will be better in the near future if they have their way.
Governments have looked with indifference at the haphazard growth and development of our economy because of the unregulated concentration of industry and population. Without real planning and the desire to meet specific problems there will be and there is no end in sight to the decline of employment in many of our major towns and cities. Canada will increasingly become the scene of many depressed and underdeveloped areas surrounding two islands of concentrated prosperity, namely Montreal in one province and Toronto-Hamilton in Ontario.
The government has made it clear that this bill is proposing another advisory board like the productivity council, the Atlantic development board and a host of others that are being established. This board will have no more power to get action than those already working have had. The productivity council sent a mission to western Europe. It was made up of representatives of labour, management and government. It made an excellent report, which members of this house have had an opportunity to read, on western Europe's prosperity and how it has been accomplished. What minister or what government department has the responsibility to see that we apply to Canada those lessons which they
learned, so that we can do for the people of Canada the kind of job which the western European countries have been able to do for the last 15 years. This is completely unlike the European experience. We can only assume from these differences between what is being done in Europe and what is proposed in this bill that the bill is really nothing but window dressing and will accomplish nothing to bring us to the state of full employment which they are enjoying in Europe.
In most European countries they have dealt directly with the problem of plant location through area development programs. In Great Britain positive controls and financial inducements are used to direct the location of new plants. A company wishing to build a new plant may be refused permission to locate in an area where there is a labour shortage. At the same time, loans, grants and other inducements are offered to encourage the location of plants in areas of higher than average unemployment. Thousands of new jobs have been created in formerly depressed areas by these policies. The president of the British board of trade used his power of persuasion in not permitting the Ford Motor Company of Great Britain to expand its own original location in London, which is already congested, and persuaded the company to erect its new facilities on the Mersey side, an area suffering from chronic and high unemployment. Twenty thousand new jobs were created in this area. Is it too much to suggest that we could use some of the same type of persuasion and direction in Canada?
What has happened in Canada, of course, is the exact reverse. Beginning in 1957 when the former government was still in power and continuing until the present day we have had a steady erosion of jobs in the Windsor area as the automobile industry has moved its facilities to the Toronto-Hamilton area. But you can study this bill or the speeches of the minister with a microscope and find no evidence that this government proposes to do anything like the British have accomplished.
In France recently the French minister of industry threatened, under the power vested in him by French law, to examine with the greatest care new foreign investment in France because two American firms had laid off 1,000 workers as a result of changed business conditions. The Toronto Globe and Mail in its issue of Friday, December 14, 1962, quoted the minister as follows:
I will not permit that certain isolated enterprises practice in French industry an irresponsible policy
3016	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board that does not respect the social contract linking a financially powerful enterprise to the labour it employs.
That is a far cry from anything we have heard from any minister in this house. The French government, on the advice of the commissariat du plan, prohibits new installations in the Paris area, and there are grants and fiscal exemptions to encourage development in certain other regions. If it were not so tragic in its consequences it would be laughable that a United States foreign subsidiary 3,000 miles across the Atlantic ocean from its parent head office is subject to this kind of social restraint when in Canada in the Windsor area, only a few miles away from its parent company, another huge subsidiary company in the same industry is absolutely free and unchecked by any such moral or legal restraint in this country. Yet we have this happening with no protest on the part of the government and no protest at the time it began by the former government which is now the official opposition.
There is not a single industrialized society in free enterprise western Europe which does not, in some form or another curb the power of huge corporations to disregard their social and moral responsibilities not only to the individual worker in their employ but to the national interest as a whole. How different it is in Canada in the year 1963. We continue to propose more incentives to industry when the problem is not only to attract new industries but rather to retain established industries in the communities in which they have been established for many years and to which, I suggest, they have a real responsibility.
Our programs, existing and proposed, are programs which can only be described as piecemeal and which will have little effect on the people of this country. In Europe they realize that particular areas require special attention in order that they can contribute fully to the over-all economic growth of the country as a whole. The European programs concern themselves with much more than the elimination of pockets of high unemployment and the rehabilitation of distressed areas. They make plans for the country as a whole.
One of the best examples of the lack of planning and the callousness of Canadian industry can be seen if one looks at the city of Windsor. The exodus of industry there has means the loss of thousands of jobs. Many of the unemployed have never found new employment. Since 1956, when the Liberal party was still the government of Canada, there has been a drastic contraction of employment in Windsor. There has been a drop of $20 million a year in wages and salaries alone. As income from wages and salaries fell so
IMr. Orlikow.]

has income earned by business, professional and commercial interests in that area. New residential construction has fallen off sharply in the past five years. In 1961 house building was one third of that of 1956. Per capita spending on retail goods and services declined by $20 between 1959 and 1961.
Greater Windsor's population increased by only 18 per cent from 1951 to 1961, while the average increase for 17 metropolitan areas surveyed for the same period was 45 per cent. From 1956 to 1961 the increase in population in Windsor was only 4 per cent.
The major cause for this stagnation in Windsor is the program of relocation of Windsor's single major industry, the motor vehicle and parts industry. There has been no compensating growth in other lines of manufacturing so Windsor is plagued by large scale chronic unemployment. In 1951 the Ford Motor Company of Canada had 12,000 production workers in Windsor. Today there are less than 4,000, and more departments are to be transferred to the Toronto area in the next few years.
This fantastic cut-back was part of a deliberate policy on the part of the company to diversify and make more competitive the domestic manufacturing plants of Ford of Canada. The company has withdrawn from Windsor with little, if any, consideration for its displaced workers. Supply and feeder plants which sell to Ford have been forced to follow Ford to the Toronto-Oakville area. There are now more of these plants in the Toronto area than are left in the greater Windsor area. Thousands of these workers laid off by Ford and the parts plants have never been re-employed and are now drawing unemployment insurance benefits or, in many cases, welfare from the municipalities concerned because they have exhausted their benefits.
Many attempts were made to get the company to consider the effects of these moves or even to help the workers move to the new location so that they could start over with a new job in a new area, but these attempts were met with cold, hard, ruthless, callous disregard by the companies concerned and especially by the Ford company. This is not a case of a company being forced to take drastic action by adversity. For the first six months of 1962 the Ford Motor Company showed a consolidated net income of over $20 million, an increase of 145 per cent over the same period in 1961. The net profit for the first six months of 1962 was almost $5 million higher than its previous record. From 1951 to 1961 the earnings retained by Ford for use in the business rose from $178 million to $226 million. In the ten year period ended in 1960 the net profit of Ford represented an average

annual return of over 11 per cent on the company's average net worth for that period. Certainly this was a generous rate of return. Yet despite this generous rate of return the Ford workers and the community of Windsor have been ignored and their welfare disregarded by this corporate giant, a giant without a heart. Ford can reap record profits, but it cannot or will not find the means to provide employment for workers who have worked for that company for 20 or more years. This company is one of the wealthiest in Canada. The people of Canada, I suggest, have a right to ask how profitable a company has to be before it realizes that it has a responsibility to its workers, to the people of Canada as well as to its shareholders.
If this bill has any answer for the workers of Windsor, I for one have failed to find it. The private corporations, however, are not the only ones who are guilty of a callous disregard of their own workers. In my own city of Winnipeg, we have seen the gradual movement of the T.C.A. operations to Montreal. Trans-Canada Air Lines head office was originally in Winnipeg. In recent years a large number of departments of T.C.A. have been moved east. Included amongst these are the headquarters and staff, engineering, communications laboratory, radio shop, instrument shop, materials and processing laboratory and the engine overhaul shop.
In 1948, Mr. C. D. Howe, then Minister of Trade and Commerce, said that there was no intention to move T.C.A.'s main department from Winnipeg. He said that 95 per cent of the activities at Winnipeg would remain there. In December, 1948, Mr. Gordon McGregor, then president of T.C.A., replying to rumours that T.C.A. contemplated moving its overhaul base to Montreal, said that some of the executive staff might be moved to Montreal but that the company had no intention of transferring the overhaul base. In February, 1949, Mr. McGregor announced that administrative offices of the operations department of T.C.A. would move to Montreal the next fall. He said:
There is no conceivable reason nor any grounds for suspicion that this move marks the beginning of a mass transfer of T.C.A. activities to Montreal.
In November, 1949, Mr. Howe said that T.C.A. did not contemplate making further transfer of personnel from Winnipeg to other centres. In October, 1951, a T.C.A. official said that the Winnipeg overhaul base has been, is and will continue to be the system's only complete repair base. In November 1951, Mr. McGregor said Winnipeg would share in the steady development of T.C.A. all across the country. In February, 1956, T.C.A. officials 27507-3-191
National Economic Development Board announced that T.C.A. was dropping major overhaul work in aircraft radio equipment in Winnipeg.
In September, 1957, T.C.A. officials emphatically denied rumours that the overhaul and maintenance base was being moved from Winnipeg. In 1957, November, Mr. George Hees, then minister of transport, said T.C.A. employees in Winnipeg had no need to fear for their future employment because T.C.A. did not expect in any way to diminish repair and maintenance operations in Winnipeg. In January, 1959, Mr. McGregor said that T.C.A. had no plans to decimate its shop staff in Winnipeg. In January, 1961, it was reported that a letter from Mr. Hees to the Manitoba government said that T.C.A.'s overhaul base in Winnipeg might be closed in 1965 or shortly thereafter.
In 1961, May, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) told the St. James chamber of commerce that T.C.A. was reducing the volume of its overhaul work in Winnipeg but that the overhaul of Viscounts would continue in Winnipeg at least through 1965. Most of the groups which I have listed have since increased greatly in scope and numbers of personnel. The total staff of T.C.A. has increased sharply, all the increases of course being in eastern Canada. Now, plans are being completed to consolidate all overhaul facilities in Montreal. The transport minister has suggested that this can be done, and I quote, "Without major disruption to the lives of employees or the economic welfare of Winnipeg."
What nonsense this is, to imply that over 1,500 employees with a payroll of almost a million dollars a month can be uprooted from their homes and families in Winnipeg without major disruption to their lives or to the city of Winnipeg. This is, at best, a dream of the minister's which will be a nightmare for the people of Winnipeg. Hundreds of employees will not or could not move. They have homes, they have families, they have responsibilities in Winnipeg. There is little, if any, alternative employment for this highly skilled group in Winnipeg. By one decision of T.C.A. management, more jobs will be lost in Winnipeg by 1966 than the whole aggressive industry searching program of the Manitoba government, for which they recently received an international award, could possibly find.
Not only will this decision mean a payroll loss to Winnipeg of almost $1 million a month, with consequent loss of purchasing power for goods and services of about $14 million a year, but it will mean the loss of a valuable place of employment for the skilled workers now being trained in our technical
3018	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board and vocational schools. It will depress the housing market when close to 1200 homeowners have to move, and it will certainly disrupt homes and families. Why is this move being promoted? It is supposedly being promoted because of economic necessity, but the report has never been made public. It has been rumoured that the savings to be made are in the nature of $1 million a year. Even if this is true, this is a relatively small amount when compared to the social and economic loss of the whole prairie region. It is a pretty poor choice that is being made.
T.C.A.'s behaviour is puzzling because it is supposed to be a publicly owned company whose main purpose is service, not profit. But this government, and the Liberal government that preceded it, have harangued T.C.A. and other crown corporations into acting like private concerns in order to show a good balance sheet, regardless of the social consequences involved. Yet the government, which promises planning every time it introduces this type of legislation which we are now discussing, permits this callous disregard of human need while preaching the virtues of planning. The type of planning envisioned by this government may prove to be worth less than nothing but it will raise the hopes of the Canadian people without really accomplishing anything.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is time for Canada to stop treating unemployment as if it were an incurable disease. It is time we realized that some parts of Canada, the maritimes, the prairies, parts of Quebec and parts of Ontario, like Windsor, are being underdeveloped and are falling into decline, while other parts of Canada are being overdeveloped. Every day we hear of plants moving to these favourite areas. We see housing and community facilities in other areas abandoned, while they are duplicated in the select few cities which are growing. This represents a tremendous waste of resources.
We need a new approach in this country if we are to improve our dismal record of inadequate economic growth and the resultant huge and persistent unemployment. This new approach calls for the adoption of real economic planning at both the federal and provincial levels. Only such planning can achieve the goal we should all be striving for, full employment and full production. Unfortunately, nothing which has been said by either the government representatives or the opposition to date would indicate that they have really learned anything from the difficulties in Canada or the successes in other countries, so that we can hope or expect to achieve the goals of full production or full employment from the measures which they have or are likely to propose.


(Translation):


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: support the various expansion projects that are introduced because we feel that the Canadian people need them and are entitled to them. Our municipalities and school boards are in dire need but we have no public funds to implement those projects.
Instead of trying to tackle the financial problem, we are attacking individuals who are victims of it.
Mr. Speaker, those various problems concerning municipal, provincial and federal financing will only be dealt with the day we have a government who will adopt as an approach, as a policy and as a program the principle that money must not be a master, that money must not be a king, but that it must be a servant. Money will become a servant in Canada the day the Canadian parliament decides once and for all to take over the control of money and credit and to put the Bank of Canada at the service of the federal parliament, of the cities, of the municipalities and of the school boards.
Thank you.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know whether it is the intention of the minister to be in the house while the bill is in committee stage. It seems most unusual in respect of a measure to which the Minister of Finance has referred as being the most revolutionary proposal brought forward for a long time that the parliamentary secretary, at least, should not be here.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He is unavoidably absent.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: The minister himself will be here in a few moments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am grateful for that explanation because I did hear from the minister that he had to go to a meeting at 8.30, but he hoped not to be long, and that possibly, before we reached the clause by clause discussion, the hon. gentleman would have something to say.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: The hon. member is fully aware of the circumstances.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Carleton knows my mind, apparently, better than I do myself.


Richard Albert Bell: That would be a simple task.

National Economic Development Board


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I expected that obvious retort. I will tell the junior minister of citizenship and immigration that in this particular case his knowledge is not as complete as he suggests.
Now, Mr. Chairman, having in mind the announcement made by the Minister of Finance on the resolution stage, every member of this committee had a right to assume we were going to receive from the government a proposal of the most fundamental character. I do not think I understate the feelings of members on the government side or in the opposition, nor do I think I misrepresent the feeling in the country generally, When I say there is great disappointment that this much touted measure should be as weak as a perusal of the bill clearly confirms it to be.
We were told by the minister that at long last the government, because of the existence of certain serious problems facing this nation, including our balance of payments problem, our trading relations problems and others, had decided there had to be a new technique in the Canadian pattern of administration to make the ordering of our affairs more efficient to meet the difficulties which face us at this time. We were reminded by the minister of the work which has been undertaken in France and in some other European countries. We were told by some hon. members of the recommendations which had been made by the special mission of the productivity council to Europe, and, because of those initial observations by the Minister of Finance, we all thought we were going to be presented with a new instrument in the government of our country, an instrument which would make the administration of our affairs more efficient to deal with the serious economic problems which face us. Thus, there is great disappointment, on examination of this bill, to find that it lacks even some of the stronger provisions which were to be found in the Atlantic development board measure.
What have we got? We have now a series of boards in being and others are being brought into being by this government. We have the Atlantic development board, and we all know the deficiencies of that particular instrument. We are going to have the advisory council on industrial change and manpower adjustment to be introduced later by the Minister of Labour. We have the national productivity council and now we have this economic development board. This is the board of which the Prime Minister spoke at the Chateau Laurier at the end of last week, indicating that this was the heart and the core of the long term program of this government which,
he said, is prepared to face dynamically and with vigour the problems which confront the country at the present time.
Let us now examine the consequences of this proliferation of boards, referred to by the hon. member for York South the other day in his speech, when he discussed this particular proposal. As he said, when hon. members opposite dealt with the suggestion which we made in 1959, hon. gentlemen said that we would have too many boards. And now they themselves, as a result of the Atlantic development board, the national productivity council, the advisory council on industrial change and manpower adjustment, and now this economic development board, are guilty of the very proliferation which they themselves accused us of promoting when we suggested the establishment of a national economic advisory council in 1959.
There is, moreover, no co-ordination whatsoever between the various bodies. We have problems, which the Prime Minister recognized a week after the election as being of an emergent character, now to be tackled by four distinct boards, all having in fact the same purpose, all four operating under a different minister. Is it any wonder then that we recognize in the measure now before the house one that is incapable of meeting the current national situation, as a new instrument of government to supplement the activities of the government itself in seeking to cope with the various problems which face the country?
It is significant that the Minister of Finance, when he proposed this measure, not once used the word "planning". We have a right to ask the minister, as we shall when we come to discuss the clauses of the bill, whether this was an intentional omission. It is true that the minister for northern affairs used the word planning. It is true that several individual private members sitting behind the Minister of Finance used the word planning. But not the Minister of Finance. We have a right to ask the Minister of Finance, was this done by design? Because if this is the case, then we must observe that the minister does not agree with the unanimous recommendations which were made to the productivity council by the special mission to Europe of that council, recommendations which I think represent one of the most important and significant contributions made by any Canadian body appointed by the federal government for a very long time. If the minister does not want to use the word "planning" because he does not believe in it, then let him say so. If he does take that position, then we will have to recognize that this bill does nothing more than add another instrument to the Department of Finance, giving to the Department of Finance and its
3022	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board minister another official or series of officials to assist him in the operation and administration of that particular department.
That is not what the minister said this bill was going to do. This was a bill which was going to enable the government as a whole-not only the Department of Finance but the government as a whole-to give greater preparatory consideration to problems such as unemployment, the relocation of industry-a corollary of that problem-our balance of payments position, our trading relation problems, our fiscal and tax problems, and the proper equation of the responsibilities between the two senior levels of government. In other words, we were going to have a bill which would do for Canada what was being done by a similar measure in France and by a similar measure in the United Kingdom.
That is not what is now before us in Bill No. C-87. There is nothing in this bill that compares with the kind of organization, for instance, that they have in France. The hon. member for York South yesterday said that we on this side of the house had talked about the system of planning in France and about the kind of national development board which had been set up in that country, but that no one but he himself really seemed to have any understanding about what they were doing in France. Well, there will be ample opportunity during the course of our discussions to ascertain precisely what we understand to be the role of the national economic development board in France, although that is not the title of that body. We will want to know whether or not the government believes in the principle underlying that particular operation in France; whether the government has in mind anything like "Neddy", the national economic development organization in the United Kingdom, the chairman of which, incidentally, happens to be the chancellor of the exchequer. We will want to know whether or not the government believes in any kind of planning. We have not advocated in this Liberal opposition planned economy, but we have said that in the light of the character of problems of the modern day economic society in Canada there has to be some kind of planning. It is not the kind of planning suggested by the socialists. It is the kind of planning which the major countries in western Europe have embarked upon with great success, to meet their economic problems. Is the government in favour of indicative planning as they have in France? Or is it in favour of the kind of planning technique of Western Germany? Are they in favour of the kind of planning which they have in Sweden? Are we entitled to have answers from the minister to these precise
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).)

questions? Otherwise we will conclude that this bill is nothing but a facade, nothing but an attempt to deceive the Canadian people once again into believing that this government has taken strong action to meet these problems which face the country.
This will not be the first time that we have had bills presented by this government to the house which look good in form, which make a great public appeal, but which on analysis have been shown to be absolutely worthless and ineffective to do the job for which allegedly they are designed. How is this bill going to help, for instance, in the problem of relocating industry? A few moments ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North spoke of economic conditions in the city from which I come, of the decision of certain corporations in that community to locate elsewhere with the consequence that there have been large numbers of men and women placed in the category of unemployed persons. What is this bill going to do about this kind of problem? It will be no answer to say that this is largely a provincial problem. It will be no answer to say that this is a problem which resides with another jurisdiction. It is true that under the property and civil rights clause of our constitution the provinces alone can take action along certain lines not open to this government. But if this national economic development board is going to mean anything, it must mean that the government in this instrument is setting up a body that will be capable of working out with the provinces arrangements to meet the particular problem of unemployment which exists in certain areas such as the one from which I come and, in certain areas in the Atlantic provinces, referred to a few moments ago by the hon. member for Essex West.
What is this bill going to do about the problem of unemployment? The Minister of Finance cannot say to us, "This is not the problem of the Department of Finance; address your question to the Minister of Labour". If this bill does not set up the facility by which the government will have some supplementary assistance in providing an answer to unemployment, then it is practically worthless.
We now have a serious problem of unemployment in our country with 73,000 more people unemployed in the last reported month than in the previous one. We have close to 500,000 people out of work. It is the job of this government to find ways and means, in co-operation with labour and management to provide an answer to this problem. It is the job of a board like this one to assist in resolving the kind of situation which has resulted from our balance of payments

National Economic Development Board
problem. Yet, if we look at the objects and the powers of the board we shall find that no effort is going to be made by this board to deal with problems of this character. Hence we are warranted to say that, while this bill is good in principle in that it creates the necessary framework for doing something worth while, we must say that, as it is at present, particularly in sections 9, 12 and 22, it is not capable of justifying the assertions made by the Minister of Finance with regard to its merits.
We are not told anything by the minister in this bill about what the relations between the Atlantic development board will be; what the relations between the Atlantic development board and the advisory council will be; what the relations between this economic development board and the national productivity council will be. Oh, I know we are told in the bill that there will be cooperation between this particular national economic development board and the other boards. However, we are not told how that co-operation will be effected. This board is treated as an equal of the national productivity council and of the Atlantic development board.
No one denies that the Atlantic development board is designed to meet an important area problem. We all recognize that fact and we said so when that bill was discussed, although we thought the bill was not capable of meeting the objectives which the Minister of National Revenue projected for that measure when he presented it to this House of Commons shortly before Christmas. But surely the problems facing the people in the Atlantic provinces, apart from their special severity and intensity, are not unlike the problems which face most areas of Canada at the present time. The basic problems of the Atlantic provinces are the basic problems of Canada. This national economic development board bill ought to take into account this elementary fact but this is something which it does not do.
Surely the minister cannot be allowed to pass over the extremely important report to which I have already referred, namely the report of the labour-management-government mission to Europe to the national productivity council. This is a monumental document. It represents the considered opinion of important segments of our country. I refer to management, labour, capital, government, agriculture, the universities and other important segments of Canadian thinking. On this special mission there were important men representing large corporations. They included men such as the president of the Goodrich Rubber Company, and
important officials of the Canadian Labour Congress. The members of this commission were unanimous in the recommendations they made to the government.
On examination of this report hon. members will find that these men have made a careful analysis of what is done through national development boards in Sweden, the Netherlands, West Germany, France, Belgium and England, where they have resorted in varying measure to the principle of economic planning to meet the problem of unemployment and other problems, many of which we have in even greater intensity in this country at the present time. This report has concluded that the gap between labour-government-management co-operation in Canada as compared with the situation in Europe is so serious as as to warrant the conclusion that many of our problems in this country at this time arise from the fact that we have not established between labour and management under government sponsorship the confidence necessary to increase productivity so as to put us in a competitive position with other countries, with the consequence of having a salutary effect on the level of employment in our country.
Can we fully discuss this bill without having from the Minister of Finance a careful assessment of how the government looks upon this measure? Are we not entitled to ask the Minister of Finance whether or not, as the result of the passing of the national economic development board bill, the government is going to take vigorous steps at once to implement the recommendations of this particular special mission of able and representative people in our country who have come to these unanimous conclusions?
It will be no answer for the Minister of Finance to say that this is a report made to the productivity council and not a report made to the national economic development board, and that consequently we must await a discussion of the amendment to the National Productivity Council Act before receiving from the government its final appreciation of the recommendations contained in this report of this special mission to Europe of the labour-management committee of the national productivity council. If that is the reply of the minister, then we shall have had a clear indication of the meaningless intentions which the government really has in mind with regard to the implementation of Bill No. C-87, an act to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board.
The real fact is that the purposes of the national productivity council and of the Atlantic development board and of the advisory
3024	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Economic Development Board council on industrial change and manpower adjustment are the same as the reasons which warrant our giving consideration to the setting up of a national economic development board, such as that which in principle is proposed in this bill. Is it a fact that, as a result of the co-operation between labour and management in France, it has been possible to place corporate enterprise in that country in a competitive position with other countries in Europe and elsewhere in the world? Is it true that as a result of the relationship between the farming community and government and other segments of opinion that it has been possible for West Germany to enjoy the improved economic standards which have come to that portion of divided Germany? Is it because of the establishment of "Neddy" in the United Kingdom that many of the problems of that country have been in large measure, if not fully, resolved and settled in a manner that has enabled that country to be picked out as an example of what we might do, for instance, in the matter of the relocation of industry?
Is it going to be possible under this bill for recommendations to be made to the Minister of Finance, for blueprints to be given, which will clearly establish the procedure by which it will be possible for the national government in co-operation with the provinces to take cognizance of the considerations that are now encompassed, for instance, by the town and country act in the United Kingdom and the unemployment act of the United Kingdom of 1960?
These are questions with regard to which we have a right at this stage of the proceedings on this bill to ask the minister for definite responses in order to assess the value of this measure. We believed, as we stated in this house shortly after the present government came into office, when we were confronted with high levels of unemployment and when there was every indication from all the indices that we were going to have unemployment over a period of years, that the best way to tackle this problem was to establish a national economic development body, made up of representatives of the various occupational sections of our country to enable the government to have a comprehensive view of the situation and to formulate plans by which the government could apply itself vigorously to problems which cried for solution then, and which have gone unresolved since that time. That is not what we have here today. I say to the Minister of Finance, that from the statement he made in the house before adjournment I cannot conceive that he has given any evidence that the government proposes to use this bill to resort to
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).!
extraordinary action to meet an extraordinary situation in our country. I say to him that anything short of such action will not satisfy the Canadian people and will not satisfy this house.
We have discussed unemployment in this house for a number of years, since the government came into office. This is the first time that the government has come forward with a measure which in principle is capable of providing the machinery to cope with unemployment. If given the necessary power, if given the necessary consensus, if given the necessary sponsorship, this bill could do something to meet the serious problems facing us, some of which I have mentioned in a general way. But I say to the minister that there is nothing in the bill to warrant the conclusion that this is the intention and purpose that the government has in mind in the bill it has brought forward.
We shall offer amendments to the bill. We will deal with it clause by clause and we will offer our comments and our amendments which, if adopted, we believe will give the bill the character it should have and which we thought it was going to have, when the minister referred to the bill as a revolutionary measure. If this represents the minister's understanding of the word "revolutionary", I can only say that we never need fear that there will be any kind of ordinary change in this country as long as the minister is in a position to influence the character of the Canadian revolution.
A careful reading of the bill reveals clearly that it is merely a gesture. It is a facade. It is a concession to modern times begrudgingly given rather than an attempt to forge a new instrument of national development, which is what we thought the bill was going to be. That is what the Prime Minister said the bill was going to be when he spoke to the Conservative convention last week. I am sure that the Prime Minister, occupied as he is now with many questions, has not had time to read the bill or he would never have made the statement he made last Friday when speaking to the members of his party.
Today we recognize the interdependence of all sectors of our economy. We know that the farmer cannot prosper while the automobile worker goes without wages. Dislocation of one sector is rapidly transmitted with serious repercussions to another. It is no longer feasible to plan in isolation.
What then should be the aim of this legislation? I say in reply, the creation of an institutional framework for a new economic consensus, a joint seeking of ways of attaining agreed levels of national development. Nothing less than this will satisfy the Canadian people.
JANUARY 22, 19B3	3025
National Economic Development Board
(Translation):


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry, but it is my duty to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: I am prepared to have the hon. gentleman continue.


Rémi Paul: Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will have a chance later, Mr. Chairman.
(Translation):


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, if we consider the events of the last five years, we realize that for the Conservative party, economic development has meant deficit after deficit and also the growing problem of unemployment, which has increased steadily.
On the other hand, if we consider the last 22 years of Liberal administration, we realize that to them economic development meant an increase in taxes, with a view to developing high finance and chartered banks, as it can be seen today.
That is why, after 22 years of taxes under a Liberal government, I was not too much impressed by the very eloquent speech of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who preceded me; it was a forceful speech, that is all. But unfortunately, he only plays second fiddle in his party. If he had been selected as leader, then I would have believed that the Liberal party would have done what he stated earlier.
But since he plays only second fiddle and the first violin changes tune quite often, Mr. Chairman, I refuse to rely in any way on what those tail-riding individuals have to say, because the leader and the fellow sitting on his left, representing the chartered banks have always been the ones who called the tune in that party.
Mr. Chairman. I have been listening to Liberal speeches for many years in the province of Quebec, and I have always thought that they were great talkers, but were actually accomplishing very little. In a word, little action is the motto of the Liberal party.
I sometimes hear that the bill should attempt to balance our international payments. Now, we realize that the imbalance started following the war and gradually developed until it reached its present situation.
This year, we are facing a balance of payments deficit of about $770 million arising 27507-3-192
mostly from the payment to foreigners, of interest and dividends out of our industries and our Canadian capital.
Mr. Chairman, I should like, in the light of the bill now before us, to develop especially this principle. It is very easy to expand our economy should we want to do so. Our natural resources are looked upon with envy by all the other countries. But, to my way of thinking, the great difficulty in the past was that we have not developed our economy by Canadians and for Canadians.
This is the purpose which must be achieved. I believe, and I am quite satisfied that hon. members in this house will want to agree with us that there might be reasons why we, French Canadians, realize more than English speaking Canadians that our economy is controlled by foreigners and that the profits are also going abroad.
If a French Canadian, wandering on one of the main streets of the metropolis of Toronto, sees an English Canadian name on the door of a firm, he is inclined to wonder who is really the owner of that company. The English Canadian, noticing the same name, automatically believes that this industry is controlled by Canadians.
When we see the name Aluminum Company of Canada on the walls of a building, we wonder who are the owners of this company. But when the English Canadian sees the same name on the same building, it is reasonable to expect that he will not have the same doubts as to the ownership of this company. It should be stated that the Aluminum Company of Canada is owned by the Mellon Bank in the United States.
When I see an English name on a building, I make inquiries about it, but an English speaking person is inclined to believe that the company is managed by Canadians because the name is English.
Mr. Chairman, my point is that foreigners, unfortunately, have too much control over our economy at the present time. As much as 75 and even 80 per cent of our economy is believed to be under foreign control.
Hence, we, citizens of a free country, who want to be free citizens, realize that, after all, we are but an economic colony of a foreign country.
Mr. Chairman, two great races make up the population of our country, Canada. They have always been proud of their freedom, of owning their country and of developing it for their own benefit.
In fact, I have never heard it said-and history has never proved it-that Englishmen, in England, would not have shed their last
3026	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board drop of blood to protect the natural resources and the industry of their country. They own their country, just as the French do in France.
They make it a point of honour to develop their industry, to control their trade and their factories.
Should we believe that when those two races crossed the ocean to settle in Canada, that their blood became so much thinner that we, the descendants of those two great English and French races, should accept today, without moving, without protesting in any way, to be dominated as we are by foreign industrialists, no matter to what country they belong? Are we going to allow our natural resources, our industries and our manufactures to be in the hands, not of Canadian citizens, but of foreign companies, whatever country they may come from?
Mr. Chairman, I think it is time to bring this situation to the attention of Canadian citizens, to my fellow English speaking as well as French speaking citizens.
Some English speaking citizens criticized our educational system. They stated facts. But I think it is time that in this house, we should state some facts to our English speaking Canadian citizens so that they will realize that just like us, they must free themselves from foreign control or domination of our industries, our natural resources, our trade and in short, our country's economy.
English speaking citizens must face the situation. That situation should raise reactions among them, it should be a spur that will make them work with us so that we may become masters of our own economy, and so that when we produce and make profits every year, those profits do not always go to foreign countries like they did this year, for instance, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) complained of a deficit of $770 million.
Speaking of that deficit, the minister said it was not a deficit resulting from the sale of goods, but a deficit caused by the fact that we must pay interest and profits to foreign countries on the development of our industry.

Canada is losing $770 million a year simply because citizens of other countries have been granted the right to come and develop our natural resources.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have there a situation which should be seriously considered by every Canadian citizen. We should try to find the means to free ourselves from this foreign control over our economy, in order to develop our country to our own advantage.
Mr. Chairman, when we realize that not only our money but also our natural resources are going to foreign countries, we cannot but come to the conclusion that there is something abnormal in this case.
The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) said a few moments ago that 5,500 university graduates had left Canada for want of employment. Why? Because industries are controlled, as in the case of steel plants and other fields-


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?
(Text):
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I presume that we will go on with the matters which were announced last night for tomorrow and for Thursday and Friday. However, perhaps for the sake of clarity, the house leader might repeat what they are.


Mr. Churchill:: There is no suggested change in the program announced last night. I said we would like to take on Wednesday item No. 2 on today's order paper, the freight rates reduction bill and item No. 16 dealing with the capital expenditures of the C.N.R. Thursday and Friday, we would take the estimates of external affairs.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the house leader give any indication when we will come back to this measure again?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I live in the hope we will get to it very quickly.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 23, 1963