1963-01-29

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. There appeared in this building this morning a delegation headed by the government of my province of Manitoba, with which were associated other organizations representing the citizens of my province. As a citizen of Manitoba and as a representative of hundreds of people affected by the matter concerning which this delegation came to Ottawa, I wished to associate myself with it, but I was barred from entry to the room where this delegation was making its presentation. In addition I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown), the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Teillet) and perhaps others were also barred. I protest against this action.
(Translation):


Mr. R. J. Teillet (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support that protest.
It seems to me that, in such a case, where an important delegation from Manitoba came here this morning and submitted a brief to the ministers of the crown, without the elected representatives of Manitoba being given the opportunity to be present and to assist that delegation, it is fitting that I join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in protesting against such an action.
(Text):


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Veierans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the delegation led by the cabinet minister from Manitoba and supported by representatives from a great many organized bodies in Manitoba appeared this morning to present, to representatives of the cabinet, a brief on behalf of persons concerned with the problem connected with T.C.A. in the province of Manitoba.
This is only one of hundreds of delegations that have appeared here over the years to
make presentations to the cabinet, or to representatives of the cabinet, and the custom and practice has always been to hold these meetings in camera.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not true.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In this particular instance the Manitoba members were notified that if they would appear at 11 o'clock they would have an opportunity to meet with the delegation. They accepted the invitation; they did appear, and I was there at the time they were present.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: We must first of all deal with the first one. Somehow I do not feel this is a true question of privilege. It may be a matter of grievance, but I do not feel it is a question of privilege affecting hon. members in the house. If the hon. member on some other occasion wishes to raise a question of grievance, the choice is his.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another question of privilege. It has been stated that the Manitoba members were invited to a meeting at eleven o'clock and that those of us who wished to do so attended that meeting. This is true; but this invitation was not extended to us until after we had been debarred from the other meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This also is not a question of privilege but just a dispute as to facts, which does not give rise to a question of privilege within the sense of privilege as it is applied in this house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of exchanges in the house yesterday and statements which have appeared, he wishes to make a statement to the house now on reported differences between himself and the Minister of National Defence on vital aspects of defence policy.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to hear the supplementary question. There was some static in the chamber.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister indicate to the house, with regard to the negotiations mentioned in the third paragraph of his so-called statement of clarification released to the press yesterday, whether the negotiations are being carried on by officials in the Department of National Defence, by officials in the Department of External Affairs, or by officials in both departments.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the general purport and tenor of this question is the same as the question asked yesterday, to which I replied- and I repeat the reply-that I do not think it has ever been the custom to state exactly how negotiations are going on and what are the exact terms of the negotiations, until they are concluded and an announcement can be made.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: In answer to that, Mr. Speaker, and on a point of order, the question yesterday had to do-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: That's no point of order.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -with who was conducting the negotiations. Today I have asked, which departments?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, but the minister has chosen to answer. He gave an answer, and that is it.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the statement issued yesterday by the Minister of National Defence, which the Prime Minister has now had an opportunity to read, accurately reflects the policy of the government regarding the acquisition of nuclear weapons for Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I made perfectly clear yesterday, I do not intend to go further in that direction. I made the statement on Friday as to the position of the government, and that position stands.


Mr. Benidickson:: Ambiguous.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he will confirm his statement that Canada has been negotiating with the United States for the past two or three months in order that nuclear warheads will be made available for the CF-101 interceptor squadrons.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement is perfectly plain and clear, and it so states.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister, then, confirm what he said, as reported at page 3132 of Hansard for last Friday, that these aircraft, the CF-lOl's, will be armed with conventional weapons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the Leader of the Opposition will recognize that he may not ask questions referring to previous debate in this session.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: I should like to address this question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it a fact that General Norstad has stored samples of nuclear weapons in the cellar of the Leader of the Opposition's house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. These somewhat frivolous interventions do not lead to any advancement of the business of this house.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the hon. gentleman please inform the house whether he saw the statement issued by the Minister of National Defence and, if so, now that he has read it, if he agrees with the position outlined in that statement as being the policy of the government with respect to nuclear weapons.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I suggest that that is not a proper question for orders of the day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder how we could get any clarification of that answer. After all, that is the purpose of supplementary questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, we are having the same difficulty as Your Honour in getting clarification of that answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not suggesting that the question may need some clarification, but the answer that was given. That is the purpose of a supplementary question as I apprehend it. An hon. member asking a supplementary

question is, really, taking the place of another member who would have the right to the floor. There may be a following question on the general subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the statement made a moment ago by the Prime Minister that the speech which he delivered in this house on Friday represented government policy, and in view of the statement made by the Minister of National Defence in a press release which contradicts that policy


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -may I ask the
hon. gentleman-*


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will realize on reflection that he is expressing an opinion. His comment on the question of contradiction is a matter of opinion. I think the hon. member will be able to rephrase his question.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: May I, with regard to a matter so important as this, involving a clear division of opinion within the cabinet-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -point out to Your Honour that the statement which was made on Friday last represented in its entirety the policy of the government of Canada with regard to defence matters. May I point out, too-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -that the Minister of National Defence issued a press release which contradicted that statement. In the face of this situation am I not entitled to ask the Minister of National Defence, in view of this clear division of opinion, if he does not think he ought to observe the time honoured practice in such circumstances and resign?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will, I think, agree with me that his conclusion as to the statement made by the Minister of National Defence represents an opinion. It may be shared by others but it may, also, not be shared by others. It represents an opinion, and as such is contrary to the provisions of standing order 39. The hon. member has a great deal of experience and could, I have no doubt, rephrase his question so that it would not contain an expression of opinion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, you have indicated we may not
Inquiries of the Ministry direct a question which represents mere opinions. But when I attempted to produce some evidence to support the contention that there was a contradiction, by quoting from the statements made by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of National Defence, you ruled that to be out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I was not ruling out the evidence. I was ruling on a matter of reference to a speech in debate in this current session, which is clearly out of order. Those are the rules within which I am working. These are the rules within which I shall work.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask him whether it is his intention to issue a statement clarifying the statement made by the minister of defence, which in turn clarified the statement made by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think paragraphs 1 and 2 of citation 171 might have some bearing on this type of question.
(Translation):

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister allow the Canadian parliament to hear General Norstad expain the Liberal party's policy on nuclear weapons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will no doubt realize that the remarks I made a moment ago about a question that was asked apply also to his own.
(Text):


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Are the negotiations to which he refers in his statement the same negotiations referred to by his predecessor about three years ago, or are they a new development in the consistent policy elucidated by the Prime Minister.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, these are a new set of negotiations, as I said, started upwards of three months ago.


Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: have a question to address to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of Canada's reported pallid .non-participation in the NORAD alert during the Cuban crisis, can the minister advise the house whether the United States government or the Canadian
3206	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
government instigated the new set of negotia- (Text): tions to which he has referred?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not catch the purport
of the question, I am sorry.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am glad to repeat it, Mr. Speaker. In the light of Canada's reported pallid non-participation in the NORAD alert at the time of the Cuban crisis, can the minister advise the house whether the United States government or the Canadian government instigated the new set of negotiations to which he has referred, and which have taken place since October last?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I take most serious objection to the proposition put forward in the guise of a question by the hon. member. So far as the actual question is concerned, as contained in the last few words, Canada initiated the matter.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN NUCLEAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the house whether Canada is represented and is participating in the discussions being held this week in Paris among NATO members with Mr. Livingston Merchant regarding a proposed multinational nuclear NATO force?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, Canada has a permanent representative at NATO and she will be represented in any discussions that take place in the NATO council.
(Translation):



LECTURE IN ENGLISH TO GROUP SPEAKING FRENCH ONLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Roy (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed, I think, to the Associate Minister of National Defence, and I beg his pardon for not having given him notice.
Is the minister aware that an English speaking lecturer, employed by the government, went to Yalcartier to give a talk in English to a group of French Canadians who did not speak English?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will admit that it is not the time, on the orders of the day, to ask such a question.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. G. L. Fairweaiher (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would bring the house up to date on the present situation regarding the possibility of Great Britain entering the European economic community.


Mr. Speaker:: I think this is asking-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the
question from the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -at the end of the question period, if the house would agree, I would be prepared to make a statement on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: There was no question of order here. The Prime Minister simply made the reply that if the house gives permission he might make a statement at the end of the orders of the day. That will be entirely up to the house at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the question that was asked I do not know whether the house would wish to have a short statement in this regard. I had not intended to make one originally, but as the question was asked I wondered whether the house wished me to make one now.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that I forgot the indication during the earlier part of the question period that the Prime Minister wished to revert to motions. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as hon.
members know, in so far as the Six are concerned the negotiations which have been going on in Paris since October, 1961 terminated today, at least for the time being. The latest information I have in that connection is that the five members other than France continued some discussion this afternoon following the conclusion of the negotiations among the Six. This naturally becomes a matter of very considerable moment to our country and to the countries of the free world as to what course should be adopted at this time.
The attitude taken by this government in regard to British entry was set out in the

statement which I made to the prime ministers' conference in September last, in which I stated:
We wish to emphasize first of all that the decision regarding the entry into E.E.C. is one for Britain and Britain alone, after the consultation which this meeting has made possible and such further consultation as may be desired.
The Canadian government is not taking a position on whether or not the U.K. should enter the common market because we respect the right of Britain to take this decision herself. We have been invited to tell the British government of our assessment of the effects of such a decision upon Canadian interests and we have done so. There are many other considerations involved in this decision which only the British government and the British parliament can take properly into account.
At that time I proposed that whatever the outcome of this conference might be, an invitation should be extended "to all member nations of the commonwealth, of the E.E.C., E.F.T.A., the United States of America and Japan and other like minded nations indicating a desire to participate, to meet at the earliest practicable date to give consideration to how to deal with the trading problems before us in a way which will be to the mutual advantage of all". Then I said this:
This should prepare the way for the prospective non-discriminatory tariff negotiations on a most favoured nation basis.
Then I pointed out the following:
I believe that this would offer a practical contribution to the solution of our difficulties which will advance the strength of commonwealth association, will permit the common market to proceed with the expansion of its own activities, and will bring to bear the immense trading capacity of the U.S.A. and Japan.
As the house knows, subsequently I brought this proposal to the attention of the President of the United States and it was accepted. I referred to that on October 16 last and some discussion took place at that time. In connection with this meeting suggested by me and accepted by the President of the United States, in which Canada and the United States joined, the council of GATT will be meeting in a few days for the purpose of deciding on the ministerial meeting. I think in view of what has taken place in Brussels today everything should be done to speed up the holding of the ministerial meeting so that these various like minded nations that I have named, together with the commonwealth countries, the European economic community, and the European free trade association can meet together.
As far as the commonwealth is concerned, today I had a conversation with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in this regard. Consultations I am sure will be continuing now among the various member
Inquiries of the Ministry nations of the commonwealth as to what would be the appropriate course to take within the commonwealth without in any way derogating from the ministerial meeting which, although it was generally agreed in the last few days that it could not take place before April 1, might be advanced to a considerably earlier date.
I hope to be in the United Kingdom on February 25, and at that time there will be an opportunity to consult with the British government on this matter, particularly with regard to the commonwealth. After all, as I said in September, the decision was for Britain. Britain has now, apparently, found it impossible at this time to join on terms that would have safeguarded to any degree the commonwealth relationship and commonwealth preferences. That being so, no time must be lost in bringing together, by consultation, the various parts of the commonwealth in order that full and informal discussions, to begin with, may take place without delay and also, at the same time, to do everything we can to expand multilateral trade in all parts of the world through the medium of discussions and conclusions reached at the ministerial meeting of GATT.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has just made a statement on a matter of the greatest possible importance, and it is to be regretted that circumstances do not permit the kind of discussion of this subject which its importance, both immediate and ultimate, would justify.
The attitude of the opposition toward the negotiations which have been going on for months with a view to the United Kingdom joining the European common market has been clearly expressed, I believe, on many occasions. We on this side have from the beginning been sympathetic to this development, though agreeing with the Prime Minister that it is, of course, a matter for the decision of the United Kingdom alone. We were sympathetic, and we favoured this development if it could be brought about on suitable terms and under suitable conditions; because we on this side felt that the United Kingdom as a member of the European common market would help to ensure that the coming together of Europe both economically and politically would be brought about in a way which would not be inward looking or exclusive but so as to encourage the removal of obstructions between the new organization and the outside world. We thought British membership would have an important and desirable effect in the right direction.
We also supported the move because we thought it would be a further step in the
3208	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry development of the Atlantic community, and that based on this Atlantic community the best possible arrangements could be made with other countries in what we called the free world. It would appear there has been a setback to this development, a setback which even now, we must hope, will not be permanent. Any one member of the European community which accepts responsibility for keeping the United Kingdom outside of the European community is taking a heavy responsibility on itself.
When the Prime Minister said on Friday last, as reported on page 3126 of Hansard-
The agreement signed in Paris (between President de Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer) represents a forward step which would never have been contemplated ten years ago.
-I found myself at that time disagreeing with his analysis of that particular agreement. However, the information today is that there has been a serious setback. The Prime Minister has rightly said, what can we do now in the commonwealth and, indeed, in the free world to ensure that this setback is not a permanent one in its effect on bringing about better relations among all countries, not only in trade but in other ways. The Prime Minister has talked about the GATT ministerial meeting. That meeting is an essential process, more essential now, perhaps, than it was. It must be remembered that a preparatory committee in connection with this meeting was set up nearly a year ago. It is to be hoped that this preparatory work can be brought to a conclusion with the least possible delay.
The development made known today is bound to have an important effect on the United States trade expansion act because that act was predicated upon the United Kingdom becoming a member of the European common market. If the United Kingdom should now be kept out of that market, the President of the United States will have to amend in some respects the trade expansion program act passed by congress last year. It is to be hoped that this will give the Canadian government an opportunity to share in any changes which may have to be made to that act so that we may associate ourselves, even at this stage, with the United States in the negotiations which may be required, through GATT, with the European common market, even without the United Kingdom. Such negotiations however will have to include the United Kingdom and other members of the commonwealth as well.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I believe everyone of us in this house has watched with intense interest the development of the situation in Europe as it relates to the entry of Britain into the European common market.


We are concerned with the action which has been taken on the part of the president of France and by the apparent inability of the British negotiators to make their point with the European economic community council.
This is not the time to enter into a debate on this topic nor is it the time when we should be looking backward at things which might have happened or at things which might have been done. I believe it is our duty to evaluate the situation with regard to our own responsibilities and the part Canada herself can play in this situation.
This does not relate so much to Britain and her relationship with the E.E.C. or to the affairs of the other nations which compose that organization. It brings us back to the fact that we in the commonwealth have a definite responsibility. I think it would have been to our advantage had we, last fall, called for a commonwealth trade conference and moved forward with that project. I believe that at the present time the moment is opportune for such a move to be made. In fact it is urgent that Canada should take the lead in this regard. For too long we have stood back and waited to see what someone else proposed to do before we acted. We should be taking the lead now by calling the commonwealth together in a trade conference. We have an economic committee already set up which could do this work.
I believe we could do more to help Britain in her problem, as well as helping Canada, and I hope the government will take action along these lines as quickly as possible. We should, I believe, take a sympathetic attitude toward the problem which faces Britain, but it is about time we in Canada did something not only to help her but to help ourselves and to help the free association of nations which we now have in the commonwealth.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The rejection of the British application for membership in the European economic community will have far reaching repercussions for the United Kingdom and for the world, as well as for Canada as an important exporting nation.
On this day when there will be a good deal of disappointment in many quarters it should not be forgotten that when the treaty of Rome was signed in 1957 Britain could have entered the European common market without any difficulty whatsoever, and that she refused to do so rather than destroy the commonwealth preference system because she felt she had an obligation to the other members of the commonwealth. We should keep that in mind and remember that Britain made a serious sacrifice in order to preserve the commonwealth ties and to retain the commonwealth

preference system. Now that she has been rejected it should also not be forgotten that this rejection arises out of the fact that General de Gaulle has sought increasingly to direct the European economic community inward rather than outward in its outlook. This, in my opinion, will destroy the European common market, because I do not think this inward look is shared by the other members of the European common market.
The Prime Minister has said that we must now decide what we are going to do. This is not the proper time to debate the matter. However, I want to say very briefly that there are three things which ought to be done. First of all, we ought to be doing more to adjust the balance of trade between Canada and the United Kingdom. Some four or five years ago, when visiting the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister talked about transferring 15 per cent of our trade from the United States to the United Kingdom, that this would solve the imbalance from which Canada and the United Kingdom both suffer. It is true that imports from the United Kingdom have increased, but exports have increased even more, so that today Great Britain continues to buy from us 50 per cent more than we buy from her. This is something which ought to be receiving the attention of the government and of this parliament.
The other matter is that I think the government ought to go back and see whether or not the United Kingdom is prepared to resubmit the proposal she made for a free trade agreement between Canada and Great Britain, that proposal which the government rejected out of hand in 1957. I think this could be extended to the entire commonwealth if the proper negotiations were proceeded with.
Third, I suggest that this is a time for the government to open negotiations with the United States to discuss the implications of the trade expansion act. The Prime Minister has spoken about the GATT ministerial conference. Such a conference will have merit, but surely anyone who is familiar with the problems of GATT will be aware of the fact that this is a long process of negotiation, and that the immediate hope lies first in helping to reduce the imbalance of our trade with Britain; second, in getting greater free trade within the commonwealth; and third, in entering into negotiations for freer trade with the United States under the provisions of the trade expansion act. If the European common market can be persuaded-which I doubt -by General de Gaulle to go it alone, then the commonwealth, the United States and the other parts of the world must make their trading arrangements accordingly.
27507-3-203
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the present state of emergency I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister tell the house whether he intends to announce soon a better government participation in the program for encouraging winter works?
(Text):


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: If I understood the hon. member correctly, Mr. Speaker, he wanted to know whether there would be better participation in the winter works program. This winter works program is far in excess of any program of past years, and it is growing by the day. (Translation):



REQUESTS FROM UNORGANIZED

[Stage Direction]
MUNICIPALITIES On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Would the minister tell the house whether he has received from the Quebec government a request of co-operation in regard to communities which are not organized in municipalities, and which cannot now participate in the winter works incentive program?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should have his question put on the order paper.
(Text):



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING TRANSFER OF FACILITIES On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, of which I gave him public notice in room 238-S at twelve o'clock today. Will he make a statement to the house as to the government's position with respect to the representations made this morning by the delegation from Manitoba concerning the proposed removal of the T.C.A. overhaul base from Winnipeg, and will he assure that delegation and Manitoba that any moves will be arrested pending further consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making representations. I will hear the question so far as making a statement is concerned.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to answer this question in the name of my colleague if you give me permission.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, following the very interesting meeting that we had this morning with this delegation from Manitoba I got in touch with the president of T.C.A., and following our conversation it was decided that no transfer at all will be made from Winnipeg to Montreal of any T.C.A. employee pending full consideration and investigation of the whole matter by a cabinet committee and a committee of the board of directors of T.C.A.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question tp the Minister of Fisheries. Has the government given any consideration to the establishment of base lines from headland to headland to protect the rights of Canadian fishermen on the east and west coasts?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the government hears briefs on this matter from time to time from various interested groups. It is a matter which has been very actively under consideration for a number of years on an international basis, and is under active consideration at the present time.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gafe):: I wonder whether I could ask a supplementary question of the minister. Could the minister tell us whether any negotiations are going on at the present time with the government of any other country with respect to the establishment of a 12 mile fishing zone?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which should be directed to my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My department does not deal with foreign countries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I should like to direct the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Howard Charles Green: There have been discussions going on on this question from time to time, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps the minister did not hear my question. I asked whether there were any discussions going on at the

present time. Can the minister say whether there are or are not any going on at the present time?


Howard Charles Green: I said there were discussions going on from time to time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But not now.


Hon. Paul  Marfin@Essex East: May I ask
a supplementary question. Are these discussions between officials of the Department of External Affairs and the foreign power?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member knows better than to ask that question, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Paul  Marfin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A few moments ago I asked a question of the Minister of National Defence as to which department of the government, defence or external affairs, was carrying on negotiations in connection with the matters mentioned in paragraph 3 of the minister's release of yesterday. The minister said it would be improper for him to make a reply as to which department. We now have from the Secretary of State for External Affairs a reply which clearly indicates that it is not an improper question. I therefore say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is a violation of the privileges of this house for the Minister of National Defence to have denied this house that information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has had sufficient experience to recognize the fact that he may not comment on answers that are given, even though they may be quite unsatisfactory to him or to others.



NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES COMMISSION-INQUIRY AS TO RECOMMENDATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the reported impending departure of Canadian fisheries department officials for Tokyo to discuss regulations under which Japanese fishing vessels may catch halibut in the Bering sea, and in view of the fact that Canadian halibut fishermen as well as United States halibut fishermen are opposed to the north Pacific commission recommendation permitting Japanese fleets to harvest halibut in this area, has the minister already decided to approve the controversial recommendation or will the matter be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries, as requested by the representatives of the government of British Columbia?


John Angus MacLean: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave yesterday, except that the delegation which goes to Tokyo on February 5 has nothing to do with whether or not the recent findings of the international north Pacific fisheries commission, which is created under the international north Pacific fisheries convention, are approved by the government.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder if the minister does not think this question is of such urgency it would move even this government out of its lethargy and the matter would be referred to the committee on marine and fisheries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making representations and expressing his own opinion.


Mr. Arihur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries in relation to the international north Pacific treaty. In the light of the fact that we have a delegation of fishermen here today, and that representatives of the industry are also here, would he give most earnest consideration to referring this matter to the committee on marine and fisheries while they are still here?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, the delegation from the fisheries council presented a brief to representatives of the cabinet yesterday and, as the hon. member knows, another delegation has been here yesterday and today and their representatives are being heard. So far as the treaty is concerned there is nothing before the house with regard to it, and it would be for the decision of the house as to what is referred to a committee.


Frank Howard: I wish to address a supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister in his capacity as chief government whip. Has he made arrangements for the use of Senate committee room 356-S tomorrow at three o'clock for the fisheries committee or for some other fisheries groups?


Mr. Theogene Ricard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know, no.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, but first I wish 27507-3-2031
Inquiries of th? Ministry to congratulate him on his election to the leadership of the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Having said that, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would tell the house if one of the very important items he wishes to clear up before leaving the department would be the final settlement of the Columbia river treaty?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should express my appreciation to the hon. gentleman for his very kind words and to the members of the house for their reception of them. The general warmth of the reception moves me to wish that all those here were going to be future electors in the province of British Columbia. I might even be encouraged to anticipate a more favourable reception on the part of the hon. member for Kootenay East.
The desire to see a clarification and resolution of the Columbia problem is always in my mind and foremost in my effort. I only hope that it will not be necessary to await certain electoral outcomes in British Columbia in order to do that.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It may not appear to be of national importance or urgent; however, it is national in scope and is very urgent to some Canadians. Has the Canadian government received notice from the West German government that it has set a final date for the disposition of all claims that the victims of nazi persecution might have against it? If so, have Canadian citizens with unsatisfied claims for nazi persecution been notified of this decision?


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the hon. member for having cleared this matter with me first. I have indicated, and I am still of the same opinion, that this question would be better put on the order paper. There is no great urgency to have the information at this moment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, you are not fully aware of the circumstances. This matter does involve-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can get his question on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It could take weeks to get an answer.

Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



REQUEST FOR SETTING UP OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would take steps-and by unanimous consent he can do so today-[DOT] to set up the external affairs committee so that it could meet at once to discuss the negotiations on defence policy and the Columbia river treaty.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the committee has been constituted. A discussion took place in connection with external affairs and defence the other day. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he speak with his colleagues and advance legislation now before the house; then we would be better off.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are not going to get into a debate on this matter.



ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John A. Addison (York North):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the widely circulated reports of the possibility of an early election, is it the intention of this government to introduce an amendment to the Canada Elections Act reducing the number of days required to hold a general election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Both points are hypothetical.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of either the Minister of Transport or the house leader. My question is occasioned by the resignation of Hon. Earl Rowe, who was chairman of the sessional committee on railways and shipping. Since the committee has not finished its work I would like to ask either minister, whichever one has the responsibility, to give some indication as to how and when the committee will proceed in this situation?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is a matter for the committee itself to decide. I shall be pleased to raise the matter with our whip and with the vice chairman of the committee, and provide an answer to the hon. member on it.

(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Following the investigation concerning the employment of French Canadians within the C.N.R., has Mr. Donald Gordon given orders for his own resignation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will agree that his question is out of order at this time.



INQUIRY AS TO INVESTIGATION INTO STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer)? Could the minister tell us if he has received a report of the investigation to be made by Mr. Gordon about the personnel of the C.N.R.?


Léon Balcer: I have nothing to add to what I said a while ago.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Transport get in touch with the president of the C.N.R. so that we might get that report as soon as possible?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making representations.


Gilles Grégoire: I did not intend to make representations, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to obtain information about the investigation now in progress in the C.N.R.


Mr. Speaker:: You have that information now.
(Text):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, to ask the minister if before the final draft of suggested amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act is made, labour and other groups will be consulted and asked to make recommendations.


Michael Starr: I am sure those who are interested in the recommendations and eventual amendments that will be presented to the house will have an opportunity to express their viewpoints.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister advise the house whether the chief inspector of customs designated by him to investigate the Campo-bello bridge situation has completed his survey and reported on his findings? If so, is the minister now in a position to reconsider his decision and have the bridge reopened for 24 hour traffic?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this problem still remains in the category of information that is not urgently required at the present time. The hon. member can put his question on the order paper and be provided with the information.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I was instructed by the Chair on Thursday last to place a similar question on the order paper. Within a few minutes the question was placed on the order paper following such instructions, but when questions were called yesterday I did not receive any answer. This is an urgent matter which concerns 1,400 residents of the island.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be of some urgency. I think it is recognized that there are some things that are urgent to a lot of people-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The minister should stand up to answer questions once in a while.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is the Minister of
National Revenue who is answering the question while sitting down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of National Revenue who is answering my question without standing up.


Mr. Speaker:: There have been a lot of questions and answers by people who did not have the floor, but the Chair is not aware of them.
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN NEW YORK WORLD FAIR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Bernier (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Could the minister tell the house whether the proper authorities have invited Canada to participate in the world fair which will be held in New York in 1964?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will undoubtedly agree that his question could easily be placed on the order paper since it deals with an event which will take place in the rather remote future.
(Text):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James C. McNulty (Lincoln):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house whether the government is considering reversing the position taken by the Prime Minister on June 15 last as to reinstating the tolls on the Welland canal, in view of the statement by Dr. Pierre Camu, vice president of the seaway authority on Monday, January 21, that St. Lawrence seaway tolls are expected to be revised.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize he is inviting a controversy, and also asking the minister to comment on a statement made by a person outside of this house, which is quite wrong.



INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT TO RAILWAY ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him what has happened to the bill which, on January 21, he said would be introduced and placed on Votes and Proceedings, having to do with an amendment to the Railway Act based on the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that bill has been drafted, but after consultation with the premiers of the western provinces a request was received from them, and also from other interested groups in the western provinces, for an opportunity to discuss generally some of its terms. I think that meeting is to take place this coming Friday.

Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



INQUIRY AS TO STATEMENT BY ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders oi the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General, but before I do so may I remind the house that yesterday was her birthday anniversary. I know that it is not very polite to remind a lady that she has got older, but in this case it is polite because it does not show. I wish her health and happiness, in a sick and unhappy government.
Is the Postmaster General aware of the statement issued last week end by the executive of the federated association of postal employees after a week of deliberations and, if so, will she comment on it?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not know the statement to which the hon. member refers. I would be pleased to answer him, particularly in view of his complimentary remarks, but I am at a loss to know what it is to which he refers. If he would like to send me a message-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In any event I think any comments on such a report might not be quite in order at this time, but after all those complimentary remarks perhaps anything was fair to the hon. member.
(Translation) :



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Does the government accept the principle of an increase in family allowances?


Mr. Speaker:: That question is one of policy and a rhetorical one at the moment.



TRANSLATION INTO FRENCH OF WORK BY BEAUCHESNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bernard Dumont: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the tremendous number of questions from this corner of the house that are ruled out of order, could not the printing of the French edition of Beauchesne's be speeded up?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me one has but to study the official report to know the kind of questions that are to be asked at this stage of the proceedings.
(Text) :



COPYRIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can the minister give a progress report to the house on the present circumstances with respect to the copyright act, which was promised by his predecessor during the last session?


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, there is a committee of officials in my department studying it at the present time. I understand that this same act in Great Britain was under study by a committee for some four years before it was brought into the house.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As a supplementary question, for the information of the Secretary of State will he inquire in his department as to whether this matter has not now been under study since the report of the Ilsley royal commission, which was handed to the then government in 1958?



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question is based upon the assurance he gave the house just before we recessed for Christmas with regard to those categories of civil servants for whom no increases were provided in the announcement on December 10. Particular reference was made to post office employees and to customs and excise officers. Can the minister say whether he is yet able to report on the review promised with respect to these employees?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall exactly the answer to which the hon. member refers. During the recess I had consultations with representatives of the various unions, the mail carriers and postal clerks. Discussions have been going on with respect to these matters. As the hon. member well knows, the civil service commission will make a recommendation, which the minister will then consider.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are the elevator operators in this and other federal buildings included in this review?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot answer that question at the moment. There are hundreds of classifications for thousands of employees, and I would have to check the record to make sure.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I express to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) the sympathy of the official opposition on the news which has just been received, to the effect that the George H. Hees building in Toronto has been burned out.
(Translation):


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Since there is talk of election in all newspapers, could the Prime Minister give us some assurance that parliament will be recessed for a week before dissolution, so that the Liberal party may appoint a new leader?


Mr. Speaker:: For the third time, I wish to remind hon. members that orders of the day is not the proper time to voice or exchange views which, however brilliantly put, are still of a political character.
(Text):



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY INQUIRY AS TO POLICY RESPECTING SECOND ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask what progress is being made toward establishing a policy of building a second trans-Canada highway with federal government participation.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of government policy to be announced in due course. Today, I may say, a representative group headed by William Hawrelak from Edmonton and several others placed before the government representations in favour of a second trans-Canada highway by way of Edmonton and thence through The Pas.
National Economic Development Board


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is the government giving any consideration to providing additional financial assistance over and above that now provided by law in order to have the present trans-Canada highway completed?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as far as the government of Canada is concerned there has been a completion of that highway.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate regarding the trans-Canada highway I should like to add, so that there is no misunderstanding, that I was referring to the ceremony marking the completion of the route for traffic. Federal contributions for construction will, of course, continue as long as authorized by the act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister perhaps misunderstood my question. My question was, is the government giving any consideration to the proposal made, for example, by the MacPherson commission, or other proposals, for increasing the scale of federal aid in order to speed up the completion of that highway in those provinces which are unable to carry on at a satisfactory rate of speed under the present financial arrangements. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could answer that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some difficulty. We are not re-embarking on a question period, I trust. We had finished the question period and this was a reversion to motions. We called orders of the day. If there is some clarification required I would leave it at this point. I hope hon. members do not feel that this is a reopening of the question period.



NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-87, to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board-Mr. Nowlan-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry? (Translation):


Mr. Lamoureux:: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned last evening, I was saying that I agreed to the general principle of the bill now under consideration, and I was ex-

National Economic Development Board pressing the opinion that planning under the conditions now prevailing in the country, has become essential to the solution of our economic problems.
Yet, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the scheme, as it stands now, may become the efficient planning instrument that the government thinks it is putting at the disposal of our country's economy. The bill to set up the national economic development board is strangely similar to the bill which set up, in 1960, the national productivity council, and we might have grounds to fear that that new body will have a career as fruitless as that of the national productivity council.
The fact that only one of its advisers, that is to say the chairman himself, is called upon to work full time on this board, makes from the start the undertaking rather uncertain and problematical.
The bill also provides for the appointment of a maximum of 25 advisers, that is, the same number that was provided by the national productivity council. It would be quite surprising, Mr. Chairman, that such a large group of persons could produce anything but much discussion and little action. It would be preferable that the number of members be limited to three or five, perhaps, and that these work full time toward the achievement of the board's objectives.
I feel also that we should be concerned about the fact that there is no reference at all to the method of co-operation between the board itself and the government agencies. The bill setting up the national productivity council provided for the appointment of four officials from the departments concerned; this bill, however, does not provide for anything of the kind, and limits the relations between the board and the government to the reports which shall be made by the chairman to the Minister of Finance. In fact, the bill now under study does not confer any specific function, work or responsibility to the board; it merely instructs it to consider certain situations and report to the minister.
Besides, the bill itself recognizes implicitly that the members who will serve on that board without pay will effectively do little work since it provides, in a rather funny way, that members who perform duties in addition to their ordinary duties as members of the board, will receive a remuneration.
The general impression one gets from the bill is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) will have in hand a poor instrument to accomplish things otherwise quite praiseworthy.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the bill was prepared with too much haste and I find it hard to believe that an instrument so uncertain and indefinite could become, through the action of some voluntary advisers, a dynamic planning agency. If we were to appraise the bill in itself instead of accepting the interpretation given by the minister, there is a real danger that the national economic development board might be abandoned to its own resources; it will struggle along, begging interviews from the responsible ministers while being stuck with the suggestions it would like to have implemented.
If that planning project is really going to fill the present requirements, the national economic development board should be the very life and soul of the national economy. It should also be able to attend to the most pressing things first and to grapple with the immediate problems like chronic unemployment.
I think more particularly of the eastern Ontario region, which does not seem to have participated to the extent one might expect in the industrial development of the post-war years. It is not because resources are lacking, far from it. Manpower, skilled labour, excellent communications, plentiful hydroelectric resources, there is everything that could be required to bring about the economic growth of a whole area. No doubt the problem would not exist to the same extent had we agreed to give that region of the province a supply of the hydroelectric power developed to the benefit of other more fortunate regions of the province, at the price of great sacrifices that were required of the residents of that region. That decision did a great harm to all eastern Ontario and perhaps it would not have been reached if, at that time, there had been an agency like the national economic development board.
I am also thinking, Mr. Chairman, about the particular case of the area I represent in this house, and which is waiting with an increasing anxiety for the government to do something to put a stop to a situation that the most laudable efforts of the local authorities have never been able to correct.
I regret to recall here that, according to the latest official reports, more than 2,500 applicants for unemployment insurance benefits were registered with the commission's office, in Cornwall. It is an increase-seasonal perhaps but still an increase-of 700, as compared to the end of November. On the other hand, more than 3,200 persons are

National Economic Development Board
registered as seeking jobs, that is an increase of 600 over the previous month. Those figures do not substantially differ from what they were these last years; they illustrate how chronic the unemployment plague has become in this country.
I will not tax the patience of the committee by recalling in detail all the initiatives taken in that particular area to solve locally, through the only facilities at the disposal of a municipality, the economic problems of that community. Similar laudable efforts have been made in other areas, and that resourcefulness redounds to the credit of our municipalities. If enthusiasm, good will and initiative could by themselves bring in new industries, increase salaries and create employment, municipalities which, like Cornwall, have left no stone unturned to get rid by themselves of their economic plight would all benefit today from full prosperity and employment.
Unfortunately, the increasingly sharp competition between provinces, between various areas and between municipalities, in regard to the acquisition of new industrial enterprises, too often results in cancelling out particular efforts and in rendering fruitless local initiatives. Since economic problems continue to exist, in spite of all the hard work done by municipalities, it becomes imperative to look for solutions to those problems at higher levels of government.
We believe, Mr. Chairman, that the government must rethink the whole economic pattern of this country. I do not think this government has now a clear, precise, logical and long term plan to steer the economy of this country in a way that will solve the greatest problem today, chronic regional unemployment.
The setting up of the national economic development board is a step, faltering and long overdue no doubt, but still a step in the right direction. The planning of our economy could be of great help to us. But some people think that such planning should not be too easily entrusted to so many councils, committees and commissions, which the government is setting up with a generous enthusiasm.
The gradual surrendering of the ministers' prerogatives to commissioners and advisers is leading us toward the establishment of a technocracy which is contrary to democratic principles. It would have been much easier to support the bill under discussion if the minister had brought before the house a positive and detailed policy of economic planning of 27507-3-204
his own, for which he would have assumed responsibility and whose application would have been under his direct supervision. The alternate proposal submitted to us is a plan to find a plan. And if the search is successful, as we all hope, it will not be the work of the government, but rather of its technical advisors. Who knows if it will not be necessary later on to appoint a new board to carry out the recommendations of the national economic development board?
As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, this bill is a step in the right direction, as long as other measures will supplement it without delay in order to make possible a fair and orderly development in all parts of the country.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, on two occasions, yesterday afternoon, we had the opportunity to speak and we let it go, while three Liberals as well as four other members, during the evening, made speeches. But that did not prevent the member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) to say, last evening, that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) wanted to deprive the Liberal party of its right to be heard. What a big joke.
If I referred to his statement, since he has been in the habit of making statements for 22 years-or should I say for 27 years-and not always in the best of taste, I would probably make interesting finds. I shall refer, for the moment, to what he said last evening, and here are his very words as shown in the official report. I quote:
I suggest that if there had been the kind of full employment that existed up until June of 1957 the hon. member for Villeneuve and his friends would not be here at all.
In view of the venerable statement of the hon. member, let us look back to the period when he was in office, in order to see what was said at the time. We find on page 47 of Hansard a statement quoting the Calgary Herald:
Labour and management officials in the British Columbia timber industry have forecast widespread unemployment in the industry this winter.
Again in Hansard of January 9, 1957, at a time when the Liberals were in office, we find:
Both groups agreed it would be "the worst winter since the war" and some said unemployment might spread to other industries.
International Woodworkers of America expect to have 1,200 men out of work by mid-November. Already nearly 800 have been laid off.
3218	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board
Should the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate remember what he has said, he would be so nervous that we would think there was an atomic bomb under his seat.
But since the hon. member usually makes a statement one day and another kind of statement the next day, he is recommending for the national economic development board plans which make me remember only too well what we saw in my own riding last year in connection with the winter works program.
Mr. Leblond, a good Liberal mayor, ordered the work to be done with shovels. The tractors and shovel dredgers were then put away and the men had to work at temperatures of 10 below zero, which is abnormally cold weather to have men work to earn their living by the sweat of their brow.
I believe that hon. members should rather recommend appropriate means to have the works financed by the municipal governments, so that our mayors could have the job done the way they want to. Then, it would not be necessary to have men carry out in such cold weather, winter works ordered by whatever party it may be.
People in St. Philemon see how ridiculous this is but they nevertheless agree to work because they have to eat three meals a day. One of those workers told me: "Why not use a spoon instead of a shovel, so as to make the work last all winter?" And another one, yet more astute: "While we are at it, let us use tooth-picks: the work will never end."
Planning which the government would undertake would be along that line; individuals would be forced to do things which the hon. members of the house cannot see. That is why we in this corner of the house are earnestly advocating the establishment of a municipal credit board in order that the municipalities may not be compelled to agree to carry out the necessary works in such a ridiculous manner which is unacceptable in
1963.	People submit because they have no choice. It reminds us somewhat of the concentration camps behind the iron curtain.
I realize that we are quite comfortable in this house; it is therefore hard to imagine the hardships suffered by those who are working in freezing weather. This is the reason we are here, this is why there are 30 Social Credit members now in the house; the people were more than fed up with the old line parties who managed the affairs of the country according to their dishonest methods, which forced human beings to stay in the fMr. Dumont.]


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, the aim of economic activities has always been to produce as much as possible with the least effort possible. Automation should please man, should help him, should exalt him in his country, instead of pushing him in that kind of insecurity which demoralizes him.
Why does the state exist? To lead or to serve? We must realize where the duty of the state lies. What is the purpose of this bill to set up a national economic development board? What is it about? Production activities? Processing operations? Manufactures? Plants? Increase production? Agriculture? Transport?
I wonder what is the aim of all those activities. Why do they exist? Of course, their raison d'etre is to meet the needs of human beings. That is the aim of any sound economy; to fill the need for appropriate goods and profits. Production and industry therefore exist to serve.
Furthermore, we are convinced that with modern means of production and transport, it is possible and relatively easy to put enough goods at the disposal of all consumers to satisfy all their essential needs. If that result is not achieved, the fault does not lie with production itself, and it does not lie either with the will of the consumers.
Since the aim of production is to meet the needs of consumers, it follows that consumers must have the means to make their needs known to production; it is to the master to make his desires known to his servant.
We have here a bill concerning economic development, under which the government will be authorized to direct; and thanks to that power, even if the people are in need of 27507-3-204J
National Economic Development Board bread, the government will be able to say that it is guns that are needed-exactly what the people do not want.
Reference is made in this bill to planned or directed economy. To direct means to draw, to push in a given direction. In what direction? If it is not directed in the direction of its final objective, it will go astray; and if its final objective consists in meeting the needs of consumers, is it not consumers themselves?
Yet, is that really the idea entertained by those who are requesting a planned economy? Are they not thinking rather in terms of an economy in which the government will put its finger in all control institutions and will tell production what to do and consumers what they must accept?
If that is the kind of direction which is requested, let us realize at once that we already have, and that we have had for several decades, a directed economy. It is directed by those who are in a position to give orders to production, by those who are in a position to dictate their conditions to producers, and by no stretch of the imagination could we say that it is the people, with their needs, who are giving orders to production.
Who suffers from hunger? Members of families where there are more mouths to feed than there is money in the pocketbook. Are they the ones who give orders to food producers?
Who suffers from cold, sickness and the lack of clothing? Are they the ones who give orders to suppliers of firewood and fuel oil, to clothing manufacturers, doctors and druggists?
Who is most in need? Those who live in plain houses. Is it for them that thousands of people work in our industrial cities? Who gets the carloads of commodities which come out of our manufactures?
Production is diverted from its end. Shoes are produced not for the comfort of the people but to enrich the manufacturers. Thousands of people go barefoot while thousands of pairs of shoes remain in storage and on store shelves. Incentives are being sought for production without any thought being given to the consumers.
Indeed, that condition is imposed at the very source where the money required for production comes from. It is the manufacturer who borrows money and the banker who lends it who decide to what use the money will be put. That is where decisions are made concerning the proposed production and where authorization to speed up or slow down production comes from. The banker's book is
3220	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board supreme; absolutely no consideration is given to the consumers' needs. What is the use of planning?
Everybody knows that today's overabundant production has not met the enormous needs of the world and it is on this most revolting historical fact, that those who promote a planned economy base themselves.
But it is noteworthy that most of the laws that advocate a planned economy are very careful not to make the slightest reference to the power that is directing the economy at the present time. They recognize that the economy is not directed towards the needs of the consumers, but they merely ask the government to intervene to give orders to producers.
We forget that the government itself takes orders from an outside power since it takes so few measures for the good of all. Being itself under the power of money "barons", how can the government intervene except under orders and under pressure from those money "barons"? The government should get its freedom back first.
But once that has been achieved, should it behoove the government to state the needs of the consumers? Is not its function rather to remove the obstacles so that the consumers themselves can make their needs known?
There is a very simple way for the consumers to make their needs known to production and the first duty of a government worthy of that name should be to offer it to the consumers. That is the only guidance, the only logical intervention needed.
Put some familiar looking pieces of paper in each consumer's pocket, or give him only an account on which to draw cheques, and you will see if each consumer will not start at once to place orders with production; and if that situation is allowed to remain unchanged, production will automatically meet the needs of the consumers.
Money is like a right to vote with regard to products. If production exists for the consumers, that right to vote must be given to the consumers. The dollar is the voting slip through which the consumer chooses the product that suits him. Therefore, it is with this voting slip that the consumer will direct the industry, finance through his purchases the enterprise that works for him and eliminate by refusing it his slip, the one which pursues other aims.
Production is very efficient provided it is left alone. Let us take the case of the shoe-


making industry; a woman buys three pairs of shoes for the members of her family. You never hear the owner of the store say that he cannot let these three pairs of shoes go lest he might not be able to replace them. The manufacturer is only waiting for the order to supply more, and the owner of the store knows it.
Shoes are being replaced with the same unfailing certainty as a cause produces its effects.
But apply a regulation that will take away from the woman the possibility of buying the shoes; then production will slow down in proportion; for example, if the husband does not work, there is no salary coming in, and on the basis of the reward and punishment system which has taken over the field of economy, being out of work, he has therefore no right to production. The right to production is reserved as a reward; the man having not earned that reward, the shoes will stay there and the members of the family will go bare feet.
The manufacturer will not provide shoes of all sizes, not that he is not able to do so, but on account of a rule that stands against it. Production will automatically supply consumers as long as the latter are able to voice their needs to production and unless interference is exercised by a power beyond both the producer and the consumer.
However, through a philosophy that bears the strong stamp of Judaism, the pursuit of an end pertaining to morals is inflicted upon economy. Industry and production are being made a management implement instead of a service implement. Industry thus finds itself in a cramped position; it is being asked to do something that does not come within its functions and is prevented from achieving its end.
Its own end directs it to supply as many useful things as possible with the least possible effort; and the nearer it gets to it, the more it is crippled by the rule of reward and punishment. The man who is not called upon to produce must not enjoy the fruits of production.
The more industry improves, the more it eliminates human labour and the authorized consumer. And, always on account of the system of reward and punishment, the more it suppresses the authorized consumer, the more it is condemning itself to stagnation, unless it is directed towards activities having to do with destruction, as is the case today; warfare is the salvation of the system.
The conditioning of the right to the necessary things of life has become such an instrument of management that it is being used

National Economic Development Board
unconsciously by those who want to manage others and who have neither the virtue nor the efficiency to succeed otherwise.
This is the axis around which political patronage, intimidation and economical dicta-ture, at all levels, are rotating.
It is the hidden government of money interests, the government of those who, being absolute masters of money and of credit, distribute them according to their fancies and control even our right to breathe.
When the Social Crediters ask for a bare minimum for everybody, through the payment of a national dividend, regardless of any personal contribution to production, do we not find our opponents always eager to mention the moral danger involved? If, all of a sudden, man could feed himself without having to toil, what a catastrophe that would be and how could he be kept under the yoke.
And yet, the economy is not meant to govern, but to serve. Its concern is to supply the earthly goods man must have to meet his temporal needs; its moral character is to be found in the achievement of that goal, not in substituting it to morals.
It is to mystify the multitude and to prevent or delay the true reforms that the profiteers of our present financial system take cover behind moral considerations, the moment that means are sought to put an end to their deadly swindles.
If the plans set forth here and there favour regimentation-statements made by prominent people have more or less as their common denominator regimentation, state employment, state enterprise, control for the centralization of power, the loss of national sovereignties, and, it goes without saying, provincial sovereignties and individual freedom-it is precisely because preparations are being made to deal with current problems without disturbing the present financial set-up.
It is found that, with the financial system we now have, there is no other alternative to the economic slump than socialism, avowed or not. And, because the financial set-up is not to be tampered with, the way is being paved for socialism; instead of having the financial system conform to the needs of humanity, it is humanity that has to conform to the requirements of the financial system.
The Social Crediters are the only ones who have the courage to attack the financial system, and for that we are found guilty of a crime. Each time we make some progress, a pack of people rise against us and, in this pack, it is surprising to find forces and men
who, taking their responsibilities, denounce socialism.
We are the only ones to fight for the respect of free enterprise, for the respect of the human being, and for the idea that each man should receive the bare minimum required for a decent livelihood, for the achievement of a life really worth living, in security and in peace.
Mr. Chairman, the only alternative that we bring in, in order to improve our economy, is to lay down plans and more plans. People are tired of all those plans which mean nothing. This bill concerning the establishment of a national economic development board will not bring money into the pockets of our citizens: they will keep on starving. Fifty years may go by before anything comes out of this bill, if anything ever comes out of it.
We may be all dead before any results from this disastrous economic bill start showing.
We are opposed to this economic bill. We are in favour of a system which will bring life and not death. People want to live with dignity; they want to see their legal, moral and social rights fully respected. That is the reason why we are fighting. We Social Crediters, demand the right for each individual, everything which is available: the right to production, the right to modernization, the right to everything his forefathers have achieved before him. We are here to demand those rights and we do so with all our strength.
(Text):


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Chairman, before clause 1 carries I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Finance a question about the general scope of this bill. It is obvious from the terms of the bill that it has to do with certain planning with regard to production and with increasing production. I am wondering whether under this legislation it would be possible to have the national economic development board look into the whole question of rail line abandonment across this country. I ask this question on clause 1 because I feel it is of such a general nature that this is the appropriate place to raise the matter and the appropriate place for it to be answered. It is obvious that this question has to do with planned reduction in certain services over a period of time and might, on a narrow interpretation of the bill, be considered something apart altogether from its scope.
Indications have been given to us at other stages in the proceedings this session that certain steps will be taken to deal with this question. I am not certain in my own mind
3222	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board whether it is possible or desirable under this bill to have that kind of an inquiry. I am not certain in my own mind whether it is possible under the bill to establish a committee or a body, to provide for the remuneration of the people involved and to give them terms of reference that would enable them to do a comprehensive job. I want to tell the Minister of Finance that the people on the prairies who are particularly concerned with this whole problem of rail line abandonment are absolutely opposed to the board of transport commissioners being given the job. They feel that basically the board of transport commissioners is a court of record. They feel that it is involved with detailed consideration of railway questions such as freight rates, and that any general study of the economic services provided by branch lines and the adverse effect of their removal should be undertaken by a board or body outside of and apart from the board of transport commissioners.
While the question of rail line abandonment has been raised in the three prairie provinces mainly, I believe the Minister of Finance would agree with me when I say that this whole problem is likely to have a very important and very serious impact on the maritime provinces. Therefore, while it is a problem that today is being focused on the prairies, mainly because of the aggressive action of farm leaders and organizations in that part of the country, it is nevertheless something that has a very broad scope. I would ask the minister whether it would be possible in his opinion, under the terms of the bill as they now exist, to set up a committee or body that would have representation from the railways, the federal government, the provinces and the organizations which have been particularly involved, to study the serious economic effect and the serious cost to communities of a large scale abandonment of railway services and to look into, amongst other things, the efficiency or inefficiency of the operations of the railway companies having to do with branch line services.
I can tell the committee there have been brought to my attention a great many accusations that the railway companies are deliberately operating branch line services in such a way as to show large losses. The belief of the people making these statements is that these losses are being incurred so as to bolster the arguments of the companies at a later date in their applications to abandon lines. Here are some examples of what I have been told: sending in special trains to pick up goods when the regular biweekly schedule would do; discontinuing a passenger service and, on the very day it is discon-

tinued, laying down tile in the waiting room the passengers used to use; saving an expenditure of $6 in wages with the result that a special train has to be sent in at a cost of $800.
I realize this has been a broad and far-ranging discussion. We had a long discourse on Social Credit theory a while ago. But I think it is very pertinent to this bill to inquire whether or not such an important question as the discontinuance of branch line services is the kind of thing which could be inquired into under this measure. I am not asking the minister whether this bill is to be used as a vehicle for such an inquiry or not. I do not expect to get that information from him. But I wonder if he would comment on his understanding of the general terms of this legislation and tell us whether a committee of inquiry of a type which would be as independent and as competent as the chairman whom the minister wishes to appoint could be set up to inquire into this whole question and, by so doing, meet the demands of so many organizations that an impartial and independent inquiry be undertaken.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member has asked a pertinent question. I am not going to give any categorical answer at the moment, but he knows that the powers set forth in clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 are very wide. These provisions would, I think, give this board the power to investigate any problem relevant to the development of the economy of the nation. So I think I can say affirmatively that this board would have the power to conduct inquiries into this matter.
It should also be borne in mind that the intention of the government and, I am sure, of this committee in setting up the board is to deal with long term problems and I understand that the problem which the hon. member has raised is, at least in some areas, of a short term nature because the impact will be felt in the relatively near future if something is not done in connection with it. As the hon. member knows, the bill which deals with this matter is being held up at the moment until the premiers from the three western provinces come here next week. I may also say-and I do not think this has been said before-that this problem is not one limited exclusively to the prairie provinces. It has its impact directly on other provinces in Canada, and I may say, in passing, that the premier of Nova Scotia is coming here some time early next week-* he has asked for an appointment on Tuesday or Wednesday-to discuss with the government the very question which has been raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia. So, with-

out saying that this bill would constitute the ideal machinery to deal with this problem I would say affirmatively that this question could be dealt with by the board if that were the desire of the house or the government at any time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for his answer. I would simply say that I welcome the information that the premier of Nova Scotia will be in Ottawa to discuss the important question of railway branch lines.


George Clyde Nowlan: Perhaps I can qualify that. He is coming to discuss not only the problem of branch lines but also other problems in the field of transportation.


Hazen Robert Argue: No doubt he will be discussing other matters, too. We can think of all kinds of questions he might discuss.
I was about to say it is somewhat difficult for those of us who come from the prairies when we are made aware of a belief on the part of some people that this is purely a prairie question. It is a national question and I am sure it will be raised on a national basis just as soon as there are applications for the removal of branch lines in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces to the degree that these applications have been forthcoming on the prairies. It is clear, however, from the evidence, that the prairies have had to take the lead in trying to get the government, after months of delay, to do something about these continuing applications to remove branch lines. The minister has said this is a short run affair. Well, if your railway is to be taken from you, you can call it short run or long run. If it is taken from you the day after tomorrow, I suppose it is a short run action but the difficulties and inconveniences will last as long as you live, or as long as you reside in that community. I would remind the minister, because he knows, already, that the MacPherson commission recommendation on this point has to do with the removal of branch line services over a period of 15 years. Here is a question, obviously, which requires long term planning and long term action. If this is to be merely short term action on the basis of the balance sheets of the railway companies, I ask the government what possible economic advantage would it be to the country to remove branch line services if by doing so you save the railway companies $1 and cost the communities involved something in excess of a dollar in increased costs? This is an important question and I am not certain what should be done about it, not having, as yet, seen the legislation which the government is to bring down to deal specifically with this problem. However, it is because of the determined opposition in western Canada to this job being
National Economic Development Board given to the board of transport commissioners that I thought it worth while putting my inquiry to the minister. I thank him for his opinion that there is sufficient scope under this legislation to enable the kind of general inquiry I have in mind to be undertaken.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions. "Board".
Paul Joseph James Martin: During the general
discussion mention has been made of the planning programs of various European countries including the United Kingdom. Mention has been made that the chancellor of the exchequer, who holds a position in the United Kingdom similar to that occupied by the minister of finance here, occupies the post of chairman of the Neddy council. Can the minister say whether or not any consideration has been given to this arrangement and what his feeling in connection with the proposal is. It will be remembered that my hon. friend from Coast-Capilano emphasized this in his speech.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes. I should say, I suppose, that this is a suggestion to which consideration was given in the preliminary drafting of the bill. The official with whom I was associated realized that in the United Kingdom the chancellor of the exchequer was the chairman of a board popularly called Neddy. I would not say that we gave too careful consideration to this because it was felt that it was unusual on a board such as this, one to which we wanted to attract all areas of our economy to give advice to the government. It was felt that there might be some difficulty in appointing a member of the executive for the time being, whatever might be the party in power, or whoever he might be, to be chairman of the board. It was felt that the board should be kept relatively small, as has been pointed out by various hon. members; that there should be a permanent chairman who would give direction to the operations of the board and who would not be responsible for administrative details or responsibilities, as would a minister. I know that I do not have to remind the hon. member for Essex East of the problems of a minister in any department. Although it is true-and I say this without any reflection upon Neddy-that the chancellor of the exchequer in the United Kingdom is the chairman of the board, he carries so many responsibilities that I am quite sure he does not give the intensive direction to that board which we felt a chairman should give to this one. Therefore, it was decided by the government, and I suggest properly decided, that the chairman should be somebody brought in from outside who would act as chairman of the board, in the same way that other government
3224	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board boards have chairmen outside of the executive.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister's statement is an important one. It clearly indicates that the government does not have in mind the kind of body which exists in the United Kingdom, which exists in France, and about which we had some considerable detail from the hon. member for Gaspe yesterday in the very excellent speech which he delivered. We have no indication from the government of any intention to have a liaison between the government as such and this board except, as will be found in subsequent provisions in the bill, occasion is offered for reporting by the board to the minister. We will not even have what they have in France, the existence of a government rapporteur, who sits not only in the councils which have to do with the public, as well as the private sector. In France, in the top council, the "conseil superieur" and in the "commissariat du plan", provision is made for the existence of a rapporteur who represents the government. This we are not to have in the case of this particular board being set up by this bill. This gives an indication at this stage in our proceedings that the government does not have in mind the kind of planning body which the national productivity council special mission to Europe has reported on so favourably and which it has recommended for adoption in this country.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into a discussion on the details with the hon. member. As I said last night, the constitutional situation in France and in the United Kingdom, and in other European countries as well, is quite different from that in this country where we have a federal state, with provinces, and where the laws are such that it is very difficult to set up a unitary commission such as you might have in France or in other countries. Also in this country, rightly or wrongly, and I am sure the hon. member for Essex East will agree with me rightly, the state does not have the degree of control over industry which it has, shall we say, for instance, in France; so I suggest there is no complete parallel which one can draw between the two. When we come to the consideration of clauses 9, 10 and 11 we find that the duties and responsibilities of the board are set out. In clause 12 it is provided that:
The board shall, to the greatest possible extent consistent with the performance of its duties under this act, co-operate with the national productivity council, the Atlantic development board, and all departments, branches and other agencies of the government of Canada-
I can assure the hon. member that it is the intent of those who are responsible for


the inception, the drafting and the presentation of this bill to parliament that the closest co-operation and liaison between this board and all other facets of the Canadian economy, so far as the federal government is concerned, will take place, and I hope that that is also the case with the provincial governments in so far as they feel they can co-operate with this board in the development of the Canadian economy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would not want the remarks of the minister to be construed as establishing that we on this side had recommended overlooking the federal character of our constitution.


George Clyde Nowlan: No, I did not mean that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the minister did not mean that. But because he has made the observation, I think some comment is essential. I clearly indicated when speaking on the resolution that a complete parallel between what we proposed and what exists in various European nations was not possible in Canada because in every instance we were dealing with unitary states in Europe, whereas in Canada we have a federal state with ten provincial bodies operating and exercising sovereign powers under section 92 of the British North America Act. This difference between our constitutional set-up and that of the European countries offers in itself no justification, it seems to me for the suggestion made by the minister. As I pointed out, or endeavoured to point out, in my previous statement, there must be the closest possible co-operation between the federal and provincial governments to make effective the purposes of a planning board which is intended to deal in a total way with the economic problems of Canada. Indeed, I complained that this bill was deficient, as we shall later show when we come to the pertinent clause, in that it does not make provision for the co-operation which must prevail between the two senior levels of government. The minister is quite right that because of the property and civil rights clause in the British North America Act, it is open only to the provinces to exercise those powers which are exercised, for instance, in the United Kingdom under the town and country planning act. But it should be possible, having in mind the fiscal powers of the federal government with regard to its general and unlimited tax policy, for the federal government to be able to work out arrangements in connection with the provincial power over industry, let us say, in any given province in order to meet the problem of, for example, the relocation of industry mentioned by the hon. member for Essex West the other evening. This bill will be one

National Economic Development Board
having a most limited scope unless we provide in it an obligation of the board and of the government to bring about a co-operative effort between the two levels of government to achieve objectives which we think even in a limited way are encompassed in clause 9 of the bill.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Establishment of board.


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to address a few remarks to the minister with respect to clause 3. We find this clause objectionable because there is no reference made to any action which the minister or the government must take with regard to consulting any of the principal organizations throughout the country which represent the various economic areas of Canadian life, presumably the very organizations the co-operation and assistance of which are going to be required if the aims of this board are to be realized. I think an outstanding example of the very thing which could happen here and which happened to a board somewhat similar in function to this one, namely the national productivity council, was the resignation of Mr. Claude Jodoin. It is not so much an example of the fact that he represents the Canadian Labour Congress but of the fact that he represents a large organization and presumably speaks for a large number of people in one specific area of our economic life. This could apply to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or any other such organization where the government wishes to appoint a representative of that organization and puts men on a board, but owing to dissatisfaction with the manner of the appointment it did not get the co-operation of the association involved.
In pointing out the example of the appointment of Mr. Claude Jodoin, I would say that he resigned from the national productivity council on the basis that he was appointed without being consulted prior to his appointment. That is the first point. The second point is that he was not appointed as a representative of the large organization of which he was the head, namely the Canadian Labour Congress, and therefore felt that any contribution he could make to the national productivity council was severely limited, in that he could not speak for the Canadian Labour Congress, the very congress whose co-operation the national productivity council needed ever so badly, since the co-operation of labour and management was an essential to any proper carrying out of the duties of the national productivity council.
I cannot see how this legislation prevents a similar occurrence taking place with respect
to the national economic development board. Again, and I may say this matter has been gone into several times in this House of Commons, the duties of this board seem to overlap to a considerable extent those of the national productivity council. Perhaps it is the suspicion of many of us that the ultimate purpose is to have it take over the national productivity council. If that is so, it is all the more important that the manner of appointment is such as to ensure the utmost cooperation of management and labour, to say nothing of agriculture, or the purpose of the national economic board will never be realized.
In view of this consideration I think it is essential to make an amendment to this particular clause. At the same time this amendment, it will be noted, does not derogate from the government's ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction in making an appointment. What the amendment does is to ensure that the organizations whose assistance is essential for this body are consulted prior to the appointment and that to some degree the government can be assured that, once the appointment is made, the particular appointee will be able to commit to a considerable extent the principal organizations of the country of which he is a member to assist in the carrying out of this board's duties. To that end I should like to make the following amendment:
That the period in line 15 he replaced by a comma and the following words be added:
after consultation with the principal organizations representative of trade unions, farmers, and other groups as the governor in council may determine.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Peters:: While we agree that some consideration should be given to this amendment, I believe it does not go nearly far enough. One of the problems in connection with the operation of the productivity council is that we are asking for advice and assistance from a number of groups and yet we are not allowing these groups to have an active part in the selection of their representatives, and therefore not after consultation with the governor in council but with the organizations which are interested in and concerned with this matter. They should have the opportunity of nominating their own representatives. The reason for this is simple. If we are going to ask for the co-operation of certain industries and certain large corporations as was done during the last war, then there is one thing that should be done. On that occasion we gave them representation in the form of dollar-a-year men in many cases. However, these men had the backing of the independent companies who were paying them, and they went

Private Bills
to their assignments with the understanding that if they made a suggestion to the government, that suggestion was one which they could put into effect.
While I do not wish to discuss the representatives of corporations, I know that in a union it is extremely difficult to elect, through convention or in any manner through which a representative may be chosen, one who will go and take part in deliberations in a council or other body and who is not in a position to commit the organization he is representing. This situation cannot come by selection. It cannot come by the governor in council asking for this, as actually that is the cabinet. It can come only if the representative is one who has the permission and direction of his organization to back up the representations he makes. I suggest that is something that has been done in days gone by and that in this particular case anything less will not be particularly successful. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Rémi Paul: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Clause 3 stands.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business. The items for consideration today are private bills which appear on pages 19 to 57 of today's order paper.


Mr. More:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek the unanimous consent of the house to have dealt with first item No. 370 on today's order paper, namely second reading of Bill S-9, an act respecting the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina City seeks the unanimous consent of the house to have considered, in priority to all other items, item No. 370 on today's order paper, being second reading of Bill S-9, an act respecting the Evangelical Synod of Western Canada. Has the hon. member such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYNOD OF WESTERN CANADA

Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: the second reading of Bill No. S-9, respecting the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Western Canada.


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I simply wish to ask the hon. member whether he is going to explain to the house the purpose of the bill so that we shall understand clearly what we are dealing with.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, as set out in the explanatory notes, is to give effect to an agreement of consolidation, effective as of July 1, 1962, whereby four large branches of the Lutheran church in the United States and Canada, namely American Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the United Lutheran Church in America agreed to consolidate under the name of "Lutheran Church in America". The Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Western Canada was one of the synods of the United Lutheran Church in America.
The territorial jurisdiction of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Western Canada included the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and that part of Ontario lying west of the 86th meridian of longitude, the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories.
Under the terms of consolidation, this synod is to be known as central Canada synod of the Lutheran church in America and the territorial jurisdiction is to be limited to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and that portion of the province of Ontario lying west of the 88th meridian of longitude.
Clause 1 of the bill changes the name of the corporation in accordance with the agreement of consolidation.
Clause 2 of the bill provides for the adherence of the corporation to the Lutheran church in America in ecclesiastical matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-6, for the relief of Sonja Bagry-Mr. Mandziuk -Mr. Paul in the chair.

On clause 1.
Frank Howard: In so far as the bill before us is concerned, I have taken the liberty in the last few minutes of looking at the evidence upon which the bill is founded. There are a number of strange things about it which I think should be examined very closely by committee of the whole before the committee decides to recommend the bill to the house. I would particularly draw your attention to a few changes which were made in the petition as it was originally drafted and as it now appears in printed form before us. These changes took place before the committee of the Senate, and some of them make one wonder what the Senate committee was thinking about or trying to do when it made these changes.
In the first instance, part 1 of the petition upon which this bill is founded reads:
That on or about the 8th of May, 1945, your petitioner was lawfully married to the said-
Then, there is the name of the respondent.
-in Braunschweig, Germany.
However, in the evidence which was given before the committee by the petitioner, from which I should like to read a few excerpts, with the committee keeping in mind that the petition which is now printed before us contains the note that on or about the 8 May 1945, the marriage took place, different statements are made. The petitioner appeared, was sworn and proceeded to give certain evidence to which I must refer now. She identified herself, her address, occupation, religion and where she was married. Then, these questions were asked by the clerk of the committee:
Q. When were you married?
A. July 26, 1945.
There was no hesitation, just a direct statement, July 26, 1945. You will recall the petition as it is now printed gives the date as May 8, 1945. Then, the clerk says:
Q. I show you a document. Do you recognize this document?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. That is a marriage paper.
Q. Are the statements in it correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you seen this document before?
A. Well, I have it.
Q. You sent it in?
A. Yes.
Then, the marriage certificate was filed as exhibit 1. There are some other questions about recognizing a photograph of her husband and then the lawyer, Mr. Masse, asks these questions:
Q. I understand you were married on the 14th July, 1945?
A. Yes.
Divorce Bills
Previously, she had answered it was July 26, 1945 and now she says it was July 14, 1945. Then, the chairman of the committee interrupts and asks:
Q. Do you know the date you were married?
A. I don't know.
Q. What month were you married?
A. I think it is June or May, I don't remember.
Q. What does the marriage certificate say?
A. In May, I think.


Mr. Masse:: The 8th of May.


Gordon Campbell Chown: 1945?


Arthur Massé: Yes.


Gordon Campbell Chown: You had better amend the petition.
Then, the committee approves an amendment to the petition showing the date which appears on the marriage certificate. Let us remember that it took a series of questions by the clerk of the committee, by the lawyer representing her and by the chairman to get information as to the exact date of the marriage, and the answers ranged over two different months and two different dates in one month. Perhaps this is not important in itself, but it is important I think when we connect it with the other alterations and changes which were made in the petition and the other inconsistencies in the evidence given by those who appeared as witnesses.
There was another change which took place in the petition as it was originally presented and as it now appears before us. This was in clause No. 6 of the petition which now reads:
That after the said marriage and until the month of June, 1951, your petitioner lived and cohabited with the said-in Braunschweig, Germany to the month of November, 1947, and thereafter in Montreal, Canada, and that two children were born of the said marriage-
Then, the petition gives their names and the dates of their birth. In the petition as originally presented it indicated that there was only one child born of the marriage. Subsequent evidence brought to light the fact that there were two, one of whom had died, I believe in 1953. Accordingly, the petition was amended to cite the facts as they were, correctly.
That particular clause 6 of the petition also says that they came here to Canada in November, 1947 from Germany, and in the evidence which is given later on as to what time it was that they came here, the petitioner was not quite sure when it was and had to be prompted somewhat by the lawyer with respect to that particular time, but that was subsequently cleared up.
There is one other change in the petition which I submit is of great importance and should be studied at some length by this committee. It concerns clause 7 which I gather is the one of main substance, namely

Divorce Bills
that which alleges the commission of adultery. As it is printed the petition reads as follows:
That during the month of January, 1961 and on numerous other occasions in 1961 the said... committed adultery with one .. . housewife, residing at-
Further on it alleges that they were living, residing, cohabitating at that address as man and wife, or what is loosely referred to as a common law relationship. The particular point with which we must concern ourselves is that during the month of June, 1961, adultery was committed.
The committee must remember that petitions are not hastily drawn up. A petition is prepared by a lawyer who undoubtedly acquaints himself as fully as possible with all the facts to make sure everything is correct in the petition so far as its allegations are concerned. Now, the original petition reads: "That in the night of June 13th, 1961" certain things took place. That is subsequently changed by the committee of the other place to read "during the month of June, 1961". Instead of confining it to one evening or one day they expanded it to embrace the entire month of June.
I submit that was done for a particular purpose by the senators on the committee in the other place, namely, to bend over backwards if necessary to ensure that the allegations of adultery were proven, because if June 13 had remained in the petition, as will be shown later on, none of the three witnesses who appeared on behalf of the petitioner had any knowledge of what happened on the night of June 13 when it was originally alleged adultery took place. I say that the senators in the other place, in their overzealous desire for proper court procedures, expanded this period to give the benefit to the petitioner.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It was more than you are doing.


Frank Howard: In answer to my hon. friend who interjects, all he has to do is communicate with the Prime Minister to try to inject some backbone into the Prime Minister, and perhaps then we will get some solution to this particular problem.
One of the witnesses called was a Joseph Szabo who, having been sworn, testified as to his name and his age being 33, his place of living being Montreal and his occupation being a cutter. He is not, as has been the case in many instances, a private investigator or detective, but an ordinary citizen following an ordinary course of activity. He is shown a photograph of the respondent. He recognizes the portrait and identifies it as the respondent, or husband in this particular case. Then certain questions are asked of him as follows:

Q. Do you know where he lives?
A. X know.
Q. What is his address?
He gives the address as it was contained in the petition.
Q. Do you know how long he has been living there, or since when do you know he has been living there?
A. I know since 1960, August.
Q. How do you know he is living there?
A. I was boarding there.
Here is an individual who lived as a boarder, I suppose for about a year, in a particular house where this respondent is alleged to have committed adultery.
Q. Was Mr. Bagry living alone in that dwelling?
A. No, he wasn't. He was living with his wife.
Q. With his wife?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know his wife? Can you show to us who his wife is?
A. Yes, this person here.
Obviously he pointed to somebody in the committee room. Then it continues:
By the Chairman:
Q. You are pointing to the corespondent?
A. Yes.
Q. I show you the petitioner in this case. That is not the woman you mean, is it?
A. No, I never saw her (the petitioner) in my life.
The same question is asked again and then another question:
Q. Do you know the other woman as the wife of Mr. Bagry?
A. Yes.
This indicates, on the evidence of this gentleman, who was a boarder at this residence, that for the period of time he was a boarder there until at least the time when the petition was presented-that would be from August, 1960 until June, 1961-the respondent and corespondent were living together as man and wife and presumably the corespondent was using the surname of the respondent, as one would think would happen. That in itself should be sufficient grounds upon which to grant the divorce, namely that a set of circumstances show a couple are living together as man and wife and one of them is married to somebody else. Apparently the lawyer did not think so because he proceeded to ask further questions. Apparently the Senate committee did not think that was sufficient either, and they proceeded to hear other witnesses and make other inquiries. The lawyer, Mr. Masse, asks this witness some of those further questions:
Q. How long have you boarded there?
A. A little over a year.
Q. Would you tell us how many rooms there were in the apartment where he was living?
A. There were two bedrooms: the one I was living in and another bedroom with them.
Q. Who was sleeping in the other bedroom?
A. Both of them.

Q. Did you have a chance to see the inside of this room?
A. No. I had but not at night, sometimes.
That sounds as if it is the Minister of National Defence interpreting the statement of the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Get back to the subject.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend enjoyed the recitation from this evidence so much, by his jocular response, that I thought he was inviting me to go a little bit further into other jocular things, such as the defence policy of the government. The evidence continues:
Q. Do you know how many beds there were in that room?
A. Only one.
Q. Was it a small or a large bed?
As if that makes an difference with two people living together as man wife and in the same room. Anyway the answer is:
It was a large bed, a chesterfield that opened up at night.
Q. Were you living there during the month of June, 1961?
A. Yes.
Q. All through the month?
A. Yes.
Q. And every night the corespondent slept in the same room as the respondent, Mr.-
Then there is the name of the respondent:
A. Yes.
Q. Was she or he absent for one night?
A. I don't understand the question.
Q. Were they away from the house some time during the month of June?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You don't remember them being away?
A. No.
Then the chairman interrupts to deal with the significance of the June 13 date in the original petition as the one night upon which adultery was supposed to have taken place. The chairman asks:
What significance has your pleading of June 13?


Arthur Massé: Because we have one witness who was there during the night and can state that they were there.


Gordon Campbell Chown: But this witness cannot testify as to that?


Arthur Massé: No.


Gordon Campbell Chown: All right.


Arthur Massé: That is all for this witness.
So throughout this matter, Mr. Chairman, we find there is one witness who says there existed a so-called common law relationship with this couple living together as man and wife, the woman representing herself by name as the wife of the respondent; they were living together, sleeping together and cohabiting in one room in a bed chesterfield, a chesterfield that at night makes down into a bed. But when it comes to the night in question to which the petitioner refers, the witness is ignorant of that night or is not able to recall anything about it with regard to whether or
Divorce Bills
not the couple were there, or the like. So he leaves the scene as a witness because he is unable to deal with this particular night of June 13.
Following him there is another witness, a gentleman by the name of Albert Zchilter. He is sworn and gives the information as to his name, his age being 53, his address, and his occupation as a grocer. It is interesting to note there, Mr. Chairman, that the address which he gives for himself is in the same block and on the same street as that given in the petition and as that which the first witness gave as his place of residence as a boarder throughout the period of time in question.


Rémi Paul: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting case for a number of reasons which-
(Translation):


Mr. Legare:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that my hon. friend intends to put on the record all the evidence which was wholly or partly given before the divorce committee of the other place.
May I point out to my hon. colleagues that in these precincts some of the page boys are barely 13 years old. When I look at the record of our discussions last week, more particularly on page 3087, I wonder if these youngsters could not do better than to hear us speak of adultery, cohabitation or concubinage.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to ask the youngest among them to leave the room, or to replace them by older pages. I am convinced that should the parents hear our debates, we might meet with some difficulties in our future recruiting of page boys.
It seems to me that my suggestion is in order. Let my hon. friends put into the record whatever evidence they please, but not in the presence of the youngest boys.


Mr. Ouellel:: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, I must say that we have been sitting for some time and every Tuesday night, between five and six, we hear exactly the same remarks. For this reason, I am supporting my friend, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Legare), in what he just said.
The questions were asked. The hearings took place. The evidence was heard in the divorce committee of the Senate. Those bills are now sent back to this house where they are re-sifted and warmed up, one after the other. And what do we get out of it? As a matter of fact most of the bills I looked into concerned cases of adultery-

Divorce Bills


Rémi Paul: Order. I understood that the hon. member rose to support the remarks made in the same spirit by the hon. member for Rimouski. If he wants to drift away from them, I shall not be able to allow further comments from the hon. member as I have already recognized the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).
I would therefore ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to what the hon. member for Rimouski said.


André Ouellet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Anyway, I apologize for perhaps having gone beyond the point made by the hon. member for Rimouski.
To sum it up, as far as the young page boys are concerned, regarding debates on divorce, where there is question of adultery, of someone having slept here or there, I think it is more interesting for us than for the page boys.
Really, in supporting my hon. friend from Rimouski, I wonder if some way might be found to prevent a constant repetition of those words in this house, which would save the Canadian people much time and money for, after all, there may be some divorce bills which could be granted without the lengthy discussion of warmed over evidence which there is no need for us to hear, as it has been previously submitted to the proper authorities.
(Text) :


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. As one of the members of the house with lingering Victorian tendencies, I was very pleased to hear the hon. member opposite support the suggestion which had been made previously in this debate by my colleague the hon. member for Timiskaming, that the younger members of the page staff should be asked to leave during this discussion. It is most unfortunate in a sense that these discussions have to take place and this evidence has to be read, and so on, but my colleagues are doing this with the intention of improving the procedures with respect to divorce in Canada. I do urge, Mr. Chairman, that you give consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. member with respect to the page boys.
(Translation):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Members of the committee will notice that action has been taken following the remarks made by the hon. mem-

ber for Rimouski (Mr. Legare) and that the younger pages have already left the house. (Text):


Mr. Scott:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska in his remarks a moment ago mentioned that we were taking up the time of the house discussing these matters, and he asked us where it was going to end and what we were hoping to achieve. I take that to be in the nature of a question directed to us and I should like to answer it. Since the commencement of the session we have always spoken very reluctantly on these matters and would be very happy to have the entire proceedings removed from this chamber so that we would not have to deal with them. But we have taken the position that if we are going to be made to deal with divorces, then we intend to do a thorough job. We are most reluctant to participate in these matters. We wish they were not here. We would be glad to have them transferred to a competent jurisdiction when the government sees fit so to do.


Rémi Paul: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I think he is trying to create a debate between himself and the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. Also, in his remarks I think he is ranging very far from the principle of the bill the committee is now studying.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I would never do that. I was merely trying to point out our position in this particular matter.


Mr. Crestohl:: May I ask the hon. member who has just resumed his seat a question? Can he inform the committee whether any progress has been made by the representatives of the four parties who are attempting to reach some satisfactory decision about this matter?


Rémi Paul: Order. The remarks of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier have no relevancy to the subject of this bill. I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. member for Danforth to answer this question.


Frank Howard: I do not want to become involved in that interlude at this stage, though if the rules would permit it I would certainly like to. All I can do is suggest that the hon. member who raised the question should ask the hon. member for Laurier who it was who scuttled the negotiations which took place.
One of the witnesses who appeared before the committee in the other place to give evidence was a grocer. 1 say that by way of repetition only to bring all his evidence into one place so that we may be able to follow more clearly what is going on. As I said at the outset of the remarks I made when I first spoke this session with respect to these divorce

bills-and this will be of particular interest, I think, to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska and others-I do not like taking part in these particular debates on these particular bills. I do not want to. I would just as soon not have to do so. I would just as soon we did not have continually, twice a week, to deal with these questions here and recite at length excerpts from the evidence given before the other place. However, as long as we have to deal with this bill which is before us, and others, we feel it is our responsibility to do so in as much detail as is necessary to get across the point of view we hold. I wish other hon. members would participate to the same extent. Perhaps in that way we could bring pressure to bear on the authorities responsible for dealing with these matters. (Translation):


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask you a question. Have the bills which are being referred to us by the Senate been examined previously by the other place?


Rémi Paul: The Chair cannot answer questions that hon. members of the committee may wish to ask.
(Text):


Frank Howard: I am prevented by your ruling, Mr. Chairman, from replying to that interesting question. I had a worth while, interesting argument to make, one which represents my views about the members of the other place and whether they study anything with assiduity or not. In any event, Mr. Zchilter, a grocer, gives evidence by recognizing and identifying a picture of the respondent. He gives his name. Then follows a series of questions and answers:
Q. Who is this man? A. Ignaz.
Q. Ignaz who? A. Ignaz Bagry.
Q. Where does he live? A. Next door to us, upstairs, I don't know the house number.
Q. How long has he been living there, to your knowledge?
A. Oh, six, seven years.
Q. Do you know his trade or occupation. A. A tailor.
Q. Do you know whether he is married or not?
A. Well, at that time he was supposed to be married.
Q. Do you know the person? Do you see her in this room?
A. This woman here.
Those questions were asked by Mr. Masse. Now the chairman asks a few questions.
Q. You are pointing to the corespondent. It is not the petitioner. A. I never seen her (indicating the petitioner).
Q. You never saw the petitioner before? A. No.
So here we find the grocer, who has lived next door to this couple, indicating that they have been together as man and wife for six or seven years. He had some inkling that they were not married as may be gathered from
Divorce Bills
his answer to the question when he said "supposed to be married". Mr. Masse asks:
Q. Have you seen Mr. Bagry and the woman that you thought was his wife many times during, those seven years? A. All the time.
Witness again indicates that here is a so-called common law marital ielationship which has existed for a period of seven years. Perhaps that would be sufficient to meet the test of the other place, which is adultery, because adultery as far as this case and others are concerned is solely an occasion of sexual intercourse having taken place. Proof of the act itself is seldom given. What is required is just a set of circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to assume that such an act had taken place. Presumably the senators had come to the conclusion in their own minds after a couple had lived together for seven years representing themselves as man and wife the test of adultery had been met. However, they went further.
Before I pursue the matter, because now the evidence goes into the question of children being involved, I wonder if I might have your indulgence to count the house, Mr. Chairman, in order to decide whether there is a quorum to allow us to proceed.


Rémi Paul: I check all the time. We have had a quorum since five o'clock. The last time I checked was about half a minute ago and there were 22 members in the committee.


Frank Howard: That is two above par, 20 being the quorum. Of course, while reading the evidence here I cannot count at the same time. Perhaps one of these days people will be so disinterested that there will be less than that number present.
The next exchange which is of interest to the committee is as follows:
By Mr. Masse:
Q. Are there any children living that house? A. One girl.
Q. How old is she? A. Five or six; I don't know.
One would have assumed that this would be reason for eliciting additional evidence to show that this child was the child of the respondent and the corespondent, because they had lived together as man and wife for seven years. We shall go on to see whether this particular point is covered, and used as additional proof that adultery had taken place during the seven year period. But the chairman interposes to ask this:
Q. Are you going to prove June 13 through this witness?
To which Mr. Masse replies:
No, I have another witness.
This seems to indicate that the chairman is concerned overmuch about whether adultery

Divorce Bills
took place on the night of June 13. Otherwise he would not have interrupted at a point where evidence was being given about a child five or six years of age living in the same house and whether or not this child had been born to the respondent and the corespondent who, according to the evidence, were living together as man and wife. The chairman goes on to ask whether the witness knows that Mr. Bagry had lived in the city of Montreal for the last six or seven years and gets the answer: "Oh, yes, naturally". I wonder if the chairman was there when the earlier evidence was given or, if he was there, whether he was paying much attention to it. He goes on to ask: "And he is still there now?" Witness replies, yes. Then one of the senators asked:
Did you ever visit him in his rooms?
A. No.
Q. You never went up there?
A. No.
By the Chairman:
Q. I suppose he buys groceries from you?
A. Yes, but they take it themselves up. I may have been up once a long time ago at the beginning.
In so far as any knowledge on the part of this grocer is concerned with regard to adultery having taken place, he has not the foggiest idea. All he knows is that there is a couple living next door "upstairs some place" who take groceries upstairs. He has no knowledge of beds and the other accoutrements which go along with married life. He may have had some knowledge about the child, whether or not he thought her to be the child of this couple, but he gives no evidence about that. As far as the grocer is concerned we can completely discount his evidence as to adultery, unless we take it that he knew them together in the area for some seven years as one selling groceries to them. He said that they perhaps represented themselves as man and wife.
I suggest that this is what the committee in the other place did, and this is what was particularly in the mind of the chairman and the other members of the committee: they had convinced themselves early enough in the proceedings before that committee that there was a so-called common law relationship, and that was good enough for them. They were merely trying to get some little bit of information to prove adultery. That is why they persisted in inquiring about the night of June 13. We now find two witnesses have appeared, neither one of whom knows anything about the night of June 13 and the allegation that adultery was committed there. In each case when he was asked the lawyer representing the petitioner said: "No,

I am not going to prove this by either of these two witnesses; I have another witness coming".


André Ouellet: Can I ask a question?


Frank Howard: Certainly.


André Ouellet: Is it true there are 492 private bills before us which have been accepted by the other place; and is it not your opinion that we should accept all of these bills together?


Frank Howard: The answer to that question is simply no. In the first place, I have not much faith in the other place. Second, I have found out they have been misled before, because people who appeared before the committee of the other place have been sentenced to penitentiary terms for committing perjury in divorce cases heard before the committee of the other place. Third, we do not think that parliament is the place to be a rubber stamp for marital difficulties of people living in Quebec, in Newfoundland, or anywhere else. That is why we are taking the course of following in detail the evidence in each case. I hope that is a satisfactory answer.


André Ouellet: One more question. Do you expect to discuss in detail each bill and to pass them?


Frank Howard: At the rate we are going, one bill an hour, it would take us, on your count, 492 weeks, and I do not think we will be here this long. But if we return for another session and these bills are still before us, presumably over a course of 20 or 30 years we can touch on each one of them. The solution is very simple. We have the right honourable gentleman as the Prime Minister of this country. We have his cabinet, composed of his colleagues, astute, able and capable gentlemen that they are. Surely they can come up with an answer to this very vexing problem. We have offered them many solutions and alternatives. We even went so far as to pick the Prime Minister's greatest love, namely his love for royal commissions, and we asked him to appoint a royal commission on this question. This would satisfy our desires for the moment. So far the Prime Minister has decided to be as vacillating as he usually is, so we have no other course to follow but to proceed on each one. We shall have to go through each of these 492, plus 200 or 300 more added each year until this question is solved.
Now we have another witness. This is the key witness, the individual who knows about the night of June 13. This is the man who comes forward with the evidence about the pink pyjamas, ruffled beds, dented pillows, rumpled sheets, and all the other gory details which private investigators love to reveal to

the committee of the other place on the question of whether or not adultery has taken place. The other two witnesses, so far as the proof of adultery on June 13 is concerned, do not matter. One of them did not have the foggiest idea about that night, and the other one did not remember about that particular night. Now we have a Mr. Armand Masse, who gives his age as 22, his address as Montreal, and his occupation as a collector. He was sworn through an interpreter and I presume would have testified in the French language, and had his evidence interpreted all the way through by the interpreter attached to the committee in the other place. He was shown a picture of the respondent and is asked whether he recognized it, and he said it was the respondent. Then he is asked:
Did you have the opportunity to meet Mr.-
and then he gave the name of the respondent, to which he answered that he had, twice. Here is a gentleman who did not know the respondent, as the grocer did for seven years. He had not lived in the house as a boarder as the cutter, the other witness, had. He had met him on two occasions. Then the question is:
Could you tell us on these two occasions what happened?
A. The first time I went there I gave a reason for going there, and I asked him who was living there with him, in the apartment, and he showed me his boarder and his wife.
Mr. Chairman, can you put yourself in that position? A man comes to your house. He does not know you, meets you for the first time, gives you a reason for coming to you, and asks you who is living in your house. Would you automatically say: "Yes, here is my boarder and my wife", when this individual is just a collector, unless he represented himself as a private detective, or something like that? Then the next question is:
Is the person that he showed you as his wife present in this room?
A. Yes, there.
Then he pointed to somebody who the chairman discovered by question was the corespondent. This is a person, who is the corespondent, in the committee room according to two or three different witnesses, and it is a wonder to me that the lawyer did not take steps to give testimony with respect to the allegation of adultery inasmuch as she was there in the committee room. She did not have to give evidence. Perhaps her lawyer asked her and she said no, but it would have been much simpler than to have had this parade of witnesses, so far none of whom knew anything at all about the alleged adultery having taken place on the night of June 13. The chairman continued:
Do you know the petitioner sitting beside her counsel?
Divorce Bills
A. I haven't seen her before this morning.
Q. On the second occasion what happened?
This is the second time he went back to the house where the respondent lived.
A. I rang the bell about two o'clock in the morning. A lady came out on the balcony in her night attire and said she would call the police if we stayed there, so we went back.
I would point out that there is no further indication in the evidence as to who those persons were; whether this person Armand Masse, who classified himself as a collector, went back with somebody else, or what happened. But the word "we" is used. Then the lawyer asked further questions:
Which person told you that?
A. The lady there at the back (indicating the corespondent).
Mr. Chairman, remember this. At two o'clock in the morning somebody comes to the house and rings the bell. On the evidence of this grocer this couple lived upstairs. Then a lady came out on the balcony and said that she would call the police if they did not go away, and that same person merely recognized her in the committee of the other place as the person who came out onto that balcony.


Rémi Paul: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Reid Scott: In connection with this bill, Mr. Chairman, there is one matter which I should like to draw to the attention of the committee. Having reviewed the evidence as we are required to do, I would take slight issue with the hon. member for Skeena. I think the evidence has proved the case and that normally the bill would be granted. However, there is one issue on this bill which we should consider, namely the matter of domicile. The members of the other place have taken the position that, in order to consider this divorce the husband to the marriage must be domiciled in the province of Quebec. On reviewing the evidence in connection with this bill I find there seems to be considerable doubt whether or not the husband in this particular case was domiciled in Quebec.
The evidence discloses that he was married May 8, 1945, in Braunschweig, Germany, and that he later came to Canada in 1947, where the couple lived in the city of Montreal. In 1949, the evidence discloses that he ran away and went to some place known as Toronto. The husband in this case would have a domicile of origin in Germany and could not acquire domicile in Montreal in the space of two years, or at least not without some substantial evidence being adduced in order to indicate that this event had taken place. As all hon. members are aware, everyone has a domicile of origin, namely the place in which

Divorce Bills
he was born and it stays with him throughout life unless it is relinquished and a domicile of choice is acquired. In these circumstances, the husband having lived in Montreal for only two years, there is no evidence that he ever acquired a domicile of choice in the province of Quebec. In any event, in 1949 he ran away to Toronto, although he later came back and lived in the city of Montreal once again.
The most important ingredient in the law of domicile is not merely living in a particular province but rather living there with the intention of remaining there forever. That is the essential ingredient which must be proven in order to show that domicile of origin has been relinquished and that domicile of choice has been acquired. In this particular case the only evidence we have before us is that of several witnesses, one of whom testified that the defendant's husband lived in these particular quarters for two years. The second witness says he thinks he lived there for six years. In those circumstances I am surprised that the other place would have entertained this bill. This evidence would clearly not prove domicile in the province of Quebec.
Under normal circumstances it would be required that the defendant husband be called as witness and that he be examined by members of the other place in order for them to -satisfy themselves that he was not only living in Quebec but that he intended to remain there forever. There is no evidence that the gentleman was sinking his roots in the community, that he was carrying on a business, that he was owning property or that he was doing any of the other things which are usually regarded by the court in order to establish domicile of choice.
I notice that the defendant husband was served on October 16, 1961, and that the bill was considered on January 20, 1962. In the circumstances, it seems rather strange that the defendant husband was not brought before the committee since he apparently was readily available. Had he been brought before the committee, he could then have been questioned in order to establish his *domicile. What I am suggesting to the committee is that perhaps this bill should be referred back for consideration of the matter of domicile. My submission is that the husband was domiciled in Germany, that on the evidence before us he has never acquired a domicile of choice in the province of Quebec and that therefore under the rules of the other place they could not have taken jurisdiction in this matter.
As I say, I cannot understand why this matter was not pursued in the other place. In any event, such appears to be the case. We therefore suggest that this matter go

back to the committee of the house which previously considered it where proper, thorough and searching examination could be made of the whole matter of the domicile of the husband and where the committee could decide whether or not sufficient evidence existed so that the matter of domicile had been adequately proven. Then we could give further consideration to this bill on another day.


Frank Howard: My friend from Danforth being a member of the legal profession obviously runs to the core of the problem of domicile whereas senators in the other place obviously disregard that matter as having no significance whatsoever and merely concern themselves with being a convenient vehicle for people with marital difficulties in Quebec. They will bend or twist the rules or interpret the evidence in any way they wish just so long as the divorce is granted. That was the point on which I was proceeding previously. We had reached the point of this particular witness giving evidence about his knowledge of what happened on the night of June 13. Questions are asked of him about this night when the adultery was supposed to have taken place after he rang the bell at two o'clock in the morning.


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


Frank Howard: Under normal circumstances I would ask consent to proceed further in order to clear up this matter. However, perhaps we can leave it to another day.
Progress reported.



NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


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

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 3-Establishment of board.
Gordon Campbell Chown: When the committee rose at five o'clock it had under consideration section 3. An amendment had been proposed

National Economic Development Board
thereto by the hon. member tor Hamilton East which reads as follows:
That section 3 be amended as follows: That the period in line 15 be replaced by a comma and the following words be added:
"After consultation with the principal organizations representative of trade unions, farmers, and other groups as the governor in council may determine."


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this amendment before five o'clock I had suggested that the clause would be strengthened if rather than merely appointing these representatives after consultation with the organization they were to be designated upon request by the various organizations to which they belong. I believe that there should be representatives of business, labour, agriculture, consumers groups and other organizations interested in this field.
One of the problems we have had with other legislation, a good example of which is that having to do with the productivity council, arises from the fact that in that organization, for instance, while there is provision for consultation with the various organizations and some opportunity for them to be represented, difficulties have arisen with regard to acceptance by the government of the representatives of those organizations, and in my opinion this situation has not proved to be advantageous.
I go back a considerable length of time to when this country did have difficulties to face and when much greater assistance than simply participation was sought from labour, business organizations, trade groups and even consumer groups. At that time many of these organizations were allowed to appoint their own representatives and such a procedure means that representatives appointed in this way carry with them the responsibility of being able to commit the organizations they represent to some extent.
It seems to me that if the trade union movement, for example, is to be represented on this new board the representative of labour should be appointed in a manner which will allow him to commit the trade labour movement from the point of view of participation in the activities of the national economic development board. When he made a suggestion he would know that he would have the strength of his organization behind him and that the organization would throw its weight behind the suggestion. I put this idea forward for the simple reason that when the government makes an appointment they do not necessarily choose the person best qualified to represent the organization. This is true, of course, of business or any other organization.
I think of what happened in the United States when Wilson of General Motors was appointed by the government of that country
to carry out a particular job. He took with him to that appointment the tacit agreement of General Motors that if he proposed a certain measure in the interests of the economy of his country General Motors would lend its support and help to put it into effect. Rather than the government simply consulting various organizations with regard to appointments to this board, I think the board would be strengthened if the various organizations were allowed to appoint their representatives, with the understanding that any suggestions they put forward would have the support of the organizations they represented.
I am not completely familiar with what has happened in the case of the industrial estates in the maritimes but I understand that such a practice has been followed to some extent in that instance. I understand that the representatives in the industrial estates-perhaps I should refer to it as the economic council-can to some extent commit the organizations which have appointed them, and I think this is very worth while.
I hope this suggestion will be given some consideration. It may be that the mover of the amendment would like to strengthen it by including some provision whereby representatives of various organizations would carry with them the authority to commit their organizations to some extent at least. The government is not going to provide all the impetus in the matter of economic development and I think those who participate as representatives must carry with them some responsibility for the organizations they represent and that the organizations should accept the responsibility of naming representatives to the advisory council.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the suggestion of my hon. friend with respect to the proposed amendment to section 3. I remember what he said about representing a group and I would remind him of what I am sure he is very conscious, the letter written by Edmund Burke to the electors of Bristol almost a century and a half ago as to the responsibility of those who represent certain groups in certain organizations, and even members of parliament in parliament. But without trespassing further on the time of the committee I would say I am prepared to accept the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member. With regard to the policy of the government consulting these various groups, I would point out we have discussions with various members of labour and agricultural organizations, and it would never be the thought of the government to appoint representatives to this board without consultation. Therefore,

National Economic Development Board Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to say we accept the amendment as proposed by the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The acceptance by the minister of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton East represents a strengthening of the clause, as urged by the hon. member and supported by the hon. member for Timiskaming. As the minister has said, it would be inconceivable if in the establishment of a board such as this, consideration was not given to the important opinion of labour, management and other essential segments of Canadian opinion. Indeed we would be defeating the purposes of the bill. We would be ignoring the recommendations made by the productivity council's special mission to Europe.
I think we have a right to ask the minister what the government's view is with regard to the recommendations made by the special mission of the productivity council to Europe. Reference has been made a number of times to this very important report, a unique document in itself. We have not had from the government, from any of the ministers who have spoken nor can I recall any observations or supporting statements being made by any hon. member sitting behind the ministry. This is the clause on which we should have a statement of opinion from the government as to its view with regard to the recommendations made. It will be no answer to say that the recommendations were made to the productivity council, because that would ignore one of the essential features of this bill which should be predicated on labour-management co-operation.
On page 5 of the report of the special mission the commissioners unanimously agree on the course to be taken. They say, first of all, that there is a high level of economic activity in all of the countries in Europe visited by them. They point out that practically all of the labour forces are gainfully employed, and that generally job vacancies exceed the numbers not employed. They further point out that plant productive capacity, with few exceptions, is being fully utilized and that wages, both real and nominal, have been rising at an appreciable pace.
They point out that employers appear to be prosperous and confident for the future and then, at page 5, they go on to say:
There is little doubt that labour-management-government co-operation has contributed greatly to this general prosperity. It would be misleading, however, to attribute the prosperity of Europe solely to this co-operation. Many factors, some of which have little relationship to labour-management-government co-operation, have played a major role in bringing about this prosperous state of affairs.

They then go on to point out, on the same page, the principal factors involved in European prosperity. On page 6 they say:
The mission was impressed with the spirit of the relationship existing between labour, management and government, the way in which they worked together in the national interest, and the mechanism of consultation and co-operation which has been established and used to achieve economic successes in most countries visited. The spirit of co-operation between labour and management and the process of consultation with each other and with government in economic development is not confined to the national level. The spirit has spread to the industry and plant levels in most countries and the machinery for consultation and co-operation is working in industries and plants through joint councils and committees at that level as well.
Then they conclude:
At the national level the consultative function in economic development is carried out through joint councils or bodies whose members, particularly from labour and management, represent the major interests involved in the economic life of the country.
Then they point out the gap which exists between western Europe labour-management-government co-operation, and the measure of co-operation which prevails in Canada between these three important divisions of Canadian occupational interest.
This report cannot be allowed to gather dust. We are entitled to know from the government if it proposes to accept the recommendations made by this special mission to Europe. If the government is prepared to accept these recommendations, then the place to give effect to them is in this bill. Unless this is done we tonight are not going to be engaged in setting up an organism capable of doing what the special committee to Europe said is necessary to be done in Canada, if we are to meet the problems of production, the competitive position Canada has with regard to other countries, and the like.
I hope the minister will take advantage of our discussion on this clause to tell us that the government is going to implement this report. If the government is not prepared to implement it, he should tell us why, and indicate in what particular the report is not acceptable if it is not completely acceptable. Nothing less than this will satisfy those people who want to see us establish in this national economic development board an organism capable of doing the kind of thing that is being attempted in the United Kingdom and what is being done in France, Belgium and the other countries covered by the report of the special mission of the productivity council.
We have heard a lot from the government about labour-management co-operation, but we have not had any real evidence of a deep conviction on the part of the administration that this represents their point of view and

National Economic Development Board
accepted philosophy of the kind of arrangements and relationships which must be established in the changing society which confronts us in Canada as in other free countries of the world.
It is significant that in 1961 the cabinet is supposed to have vetoed a proposal made by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce for a plan providing for co-operation between labour, management and the government, to work as a team in tackling Canada's economic problems. It is reported, moreover, that agreement was reached on the plan in March, 1961 at a conference of labour, management and government leaders in Ottawa, but that it was promptly suppressed later on orders from a higher level.
Has the situation changed? We were told that this plan, similar to the industry council plan set up in France, was agreed upon at the conference and that it was determined to set up a permanent tripartite council to foster continuing co-operation and consultation on economic problems, just as is being done in western Europe and Britain. This report, excerpts of which I have read tonight, supports what was attempted by at least two ministers of the government in 1961. A vital question now is whether in scuttling this 1961 plan the federal cabinet, and presumably the Prime Minister, were not in favour of the program for co-operation and consultation proposed. We are entitled therefore to have from the government its views on this special mission to Europe. We are entitled to know whether there is going to be a revival of the 1961 plan, and whether as a result we are going to make this bill the instrument which exists in European countries and which has contributed so much to the level of prosperity in that section of the world. I hope the minister-and I am sure he is-is taking notes and paying attention to what we are saying tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If he ignores what we are saying, I want to tell him that we are going to be persistent tonight because we want to make this bill a good bill. It is not now a good bill-


George Clyde Nowlan: Keep reading from Tory documents.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and we propose by suggestions and amendments which we are going to make tonight and during the course of the discussion to try and make it a document comparable at least in principle and in substance to what they have in Britain, to what they have in France and to what one of our own government agencies has said we : should have in Canada.
We have no evidence that the government has such an intention in mind, because we all recall the discussion concerning the Atlantic development board. We recall the discussion on the resolution with regard to amendments to the productivity council bill. We remember what the Minister of Labour had to say about the mobility of manpower and automation resolution. We recall, too, the initial statement made by the Minister of Finance. The result is that we have four boards functioning, dealing basically with the same purpose, operating under four different ministers, with no method or proposal whatsoever for co-ordination. This national economic development board ought to be the main body. It is the "national" economic development board. It ought to be able to give the guiding direction, not by compulsion but by persuasion, by example, to the Atlantic development board. It ought to be able to lay down for the productivity council ways and means of getting out of the embarrassing position in which that body finds itself as a result of the reluctance of labour to co-operate with the productivity council, because it feels that the productivity council does not operate on a wide enough base. But what do we find? We find this board, in clause 3, is going to be made up of a chairman and not less than 14 and not more than 24 members. I do not know how the minister arrives at this figure of 24 members. He has not told us. I would ask him to tell us why the membership of the productivity council is larger than that of the national economic development board, the body which should be the co-ordinating, overriding agency over all these boards which are designed to provide for the kind of limited concept of planning which the government has in mind.
The minister has not told us anything about the character of the representation to be provided by this board which is going to be made up of not less than 14 members. Are the provinces to be represented? This surely is an important consideration, because the minister himself mentioned, when he was discussing clause 2, that there were constitutional limitations within the jurisdiction of the federal government which made it necessary to rely on the action of the provinces, which have power under the property and civil rights clause of the British North America Act. Are the provinces to be represented on this board? Are the various sections of economic interest to be represented on this board? Are the Atlantic provinces to be represented on this board? Are the western provinces to be represented on this board? Are the farmers to be represented on this board?
3238	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the fishermen.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: What arrangement is being made to see that there is consultation with farmers' organizations, as well as with labour organizations, business organizations and, as my hon. friend from Bona-vista-Twillingate points out, as one would expect, with organizations of fishermen. These are important considerations.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister this. This clause will determine at this stage of our discussion whether the government really intends to make this an effective board. If this is going to be simply another deception, another fagade presenting something that is going to look good in form but with no real substance behind it, then we might as well know right now. But if it is to be a board capable of providing the planning we need in this country at this time, then we are entitled to ask the government to give evidence of its earnestness. This is the kind of board which should be dealing with unemployment, the balance of payments problem and other aspects of our economic life. It should have power and a relationship to the government away beyond what the ordinary board traditionally appointed by governments has been able to do under our system of government.


George Clyde Nowlan: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the minister is always in a happy frame of mind. If what I have said makes him even happier, or if he finds what I have said to be even more amusing, I can only say to him that if this is his reaction I for one draw the conclusion that this bill is not anything more than a form of well meaning effective deception, designed to convey to the Canadian people the impression that this government at long last has decided to establish an instrument to help it and future governments in planning to avoid the kind of situations which have confronted us during the past five years.
This is an important matter. What I have said tonight is what a government agency has urged upon this government. If the government does not accept what I have said, I ask the minister to tell us what are the recommendations of the special mission of the productivity council. I ask the minister to point out anything that I have said tonight that is inconsistent with their recommendations. If he does not accept the proposal which we have made, it will clearly be another indication that the government is going to allow this report of the special mission to gather dust; that nothing will be done about it; that the government will carry on in its traditional laissez faire manner, with no real


attempt being made by the creation of a new organization to seriously confront the vital problems which affect Canada at this time.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, it is a great relief to me to be able for once to release and relieve the blood pressure from which the hon. member for Essex East suffered. I have always said that if, when the time comes -and it will probably come very soon-the electors of his constituency see fit to relieve him of the terrific burdens he bears in this house, he could undoubtedly obtain a position as a leading tragedy or straight actor and make a reputation for himself on the stage such as he has never succeeded in making for himself in the House of Commons. I want to relieve his mind about that.
For once he has not been reading from statements made from Liberal platforms. For once he has not been reading from speeches which he himself has previously made. Tonight he has been reading from a report of the productivity council, or a committee of that council which this government has recommended to be appointed and which this government sent over. I am very happy to see that for once the hon. gentleman established his position on firm grounds as he did at length when he read from this document prepared by a committee of the productivity council which this government sent overseas.
I can reassure the hon. gentleman at once. I can relieve his mind. This bill has been considered by the representatives of the productivity council, by representatives of labour and representatives of industry, and all the problems to which he has referred in such fear and trembling have been considered by those representatives and recommended to the favourable consideration of this house.


Mr. Sauve:: This afternoon the Minister of Finance, answering a question by my hon. friend from Essex East, told us that the council could not be headed by a minister-that it was preferable to have somebody independent in charge, and so on. The government suggests that the council should consist of between 14 and 24 members. Is it the intention to appoint other ministers to the board, for example the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or will the board be composed entirely of persons outside the government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a few brief words, and when I say brief I mean brief, about the amendment which the government has indicated it is prepared to accept. I am glad it is doing so. I think an amendment such as might have been suggested by

National Economic Development Board
this party would have been better, but I am glad the government is going at least this far.
The brief word I want to say is that I hope this amendment is being accepted in good faith and that it will be acted upon accordingly. I make this plea not just out of idle suspicion but out of some experience with the present government in the matter of consulting with at least one sector of the community before appointments are made. As hon. members know, I had a four year vacation from this House of Commons during which time I had the privilege of being an officer of the Canadian Labour Congress, the central body of the trade union movement of this country. I can say from personal knowledge and experience that there were several occasions, during those four years when there was no consultation before appointments of labour representatives were made by the present government; and there were also occasions when there was consultation, but when, despite the making of several nominations by the trade union movement, the government chose to appoint someone else altogether.
Several references have been made to the productivity council itself. One of the main reasons why president Jodoin of the Canadian Labour Congress found it impossible to sit on that body was that the congress was not consulted as to the people it would like to have as its nominees on that board. In fact, the government itself picked out certain labour people and appointed them directly. I suggest that if a board of this kind is to function efficiently it must be set up in a bona fide manner. The principle of this amendment must be accepted and carried out in good faith. If people are to be appointed as representatives of labour, agriculture, industry and so on, the organizations which speak for these sections of our community must be consulted, and consulted honestly. Unless, in making these nominations, any of these organizations goes completely haywire-and this is not likely in any of these fields-the government ought to accept at least one of the nominations put forward by these various bodies.
It is not necessary for me to give details of things that have happened in the past. I know whereof I speak. I am referring not only to instances in which I was personally involved, because my name was rejected-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear laughter. I do not blame the government for rejecting my nomination for certain reasons, but for certain other reasons I think the nomination should have been accepted. To conclude, I say once
more that if this board is to be made to work properly the amendment must be acted on honestly and in good faith.


George Clyde Nowlan: Without accepting any of the references to past history which the hon. member has made, I say that the government has accepted the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Hamilton East. The government wants this legislation to work. It intends this legislation to work, and knows it will work, given the support of this committee which we expect we shall receive.


Mr. Nicholson:: You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that in the early stages of this legislation, during the resolution stage, I spoke in support of this bill. I must confess that as a result of reading today's mail I am concerned over some of the statements which the minister has made this afternoon.
Under the terms of clause 3 of this bill we are to establish a corporation to be known as the national economic development board. Today I received the January issue of Canadian Business with a picture of the president of the national productivity council on the cover. An article beginning on page 28 headed "What's ahead for the productivity council" contains interesting and informative material on that subject. The president of the council, Mr. De Young says, in the course of this article on page 38:
The unanimous decision of the productivity council has been that we take the broadest interpretation of our terms of reference permitting the council to engage in economic studies and projects relating to removing the road blocks through increased productivity.
Skipping the next two sentences and under the subheading "Role of Council in Relation to the National Economic Development Board" the president continues:
At the present moment we are working to finalize arrangements by which the proposed national economic development board and the national productivity council will become one-
Are we going to bury this council before it is born? That is certainly the inference to be drawn from this article. It says:
At the present moment we are working to finalize arrangements by which the proposed national economic development board and the national productivity council will become one, or at least co-operate in their operations.
My objection is to the words "will become one". I am disturbed to find that before this council comes into being, after the assurances we have had from the minister and others, the productivity council is planning to bring about a merger. Why create two bodies if there is any serious thought of there actually being only one? This highlights the importance and significance of the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East a few
3240	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board moments ago, that we are going to have four boards in fields which interlock and overlap, presided over by four different ministers, and at the same time the government is trying to marry two of them. I should like to hear the minister's explanation of that particular suggestion.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, the amendment that the minister has accepted is one which has led to a discussion of labour-management relations and members in all parties have indicated that they favour good labour-management relations. I think all of us are happy to see that such a firm stand has been taken on that issue. But, Mr. Chairman, it is essential when we are discussing labour-management relations, and what this government has or has not done in the past in this connection, to remember that labour and management must be allowed to conduct their negotiations with each other on the basis of equality. The hon. member for Essex East quite rightly pointed out that the government would have to take its courage into its hands and undertake a program of genuine economic planning if this legislation was to fulfil the promise that it holds.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that when we are discussing this subject it is pertinent to remind the government that when legislation abridging civil rights in British Columbia and Newfoundland in 1959 was passed by the governments of each of those provinces, it was a time which called for courage on the part of the federal government. Nothing in either of those provinces has done more, nor could anything have been calculated to do more, to destroy labour-management relations than the legislation which was passed at that time in each of those provinces. Hon. members will recall that in the province of Newfoundland legislation was passed which cancelled the certification held by a trade union.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am afraid the hon. member is straying a little from the point under consideration, which is a very brief amendment. I would ask for his co-operation.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Your Honour's intervention and I am grateful for Your Honour's advice. I hope Your Honour will bear with me as I am a new member in this house, and a new member of the committee, but I was seeking to show how essential it was that the federal government should be prepared to do everything which lies within its powers-and a great deal lies within the power of the federal government- to make sure that labour and management deal with each other on the basis of equality. Because it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect the rights of labour, in so far as it lies within the jurisdiction of the federal government to do so. I was urging


it upon the committee that on looking back to the events of 1959 the committee would agree that had the government had the courage to exercise its power of disallowing legislation passed in Newfoundland-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Rodney Berger: -and legislation passed in British Columbia, there would be in each of those provinces a much larger degree of labour-management co-operation and harmony between those two economic groups than exists today. I think all hon. members can see the connection between the federal government's responsibility to establish labour-management co-operation in all parts of the country and the legislation which is before the committee this evening.
The amendment offered by the hon. member for Hamilton East is one which, as he quite rightly pointed out, was designed to ensure labour-management co-operation. I suggest most respectfully to the committee that it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that the civil rights of all sections of the community are protected. That includes, of course, protecting the rights of labour.
I do not want to conduct a survey of labour-management relations in all parts of the country, but I think I can speak with some authority on the state of labour-management relations in my own province. Of course, this bill and this amendment are designed to ensure that in British Columbia as well as in other provinces in Canada we will have a much larger degree of labour-management co-operation than we have had in the past. In my own province we have had a great deal of labour-management strife since 1959.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Both the Chair and the committee as a whole, somewhat to my surprise, have been very tolerant of the remarks of the hon. member to date, which are moving very far from the narrow consideration of the amendment. This amendment has to do with the composition of the board, and asks that the following words be added:
-after consultation with the principal organizations representative of trade unions, farmers, and other groups as the governor in council may determine.
I think out of fairness to other members of the committee, and notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member is new to this house, he should recognize that he is transgressing the rules. It is not fair that I should permit him to do so and then refuse to allow a more experienced member to do the same.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, let me once again express my gratitude to Your Honour for giving me your counsel regarding the rules of debate in committee. Believe me, Mr. JANUARY 29, 1963	3241
National Economic Development Board
Chairman, it was not my intention in any way to be unfair either to Your Honour or to other hon. members of the committee. Let me summarize by saying it is simply not good enough for the government to express good intentions. Good intentions will not be enough if this legislation is to be successful in promoting labour management co-operation in all parts of the country. It will take a great deal more than good intentions. It will take courage, and I urge the Minister of Finance, whose responsibility it will be to make sure that this legislation achieves its objective, to carry it out in its spirit as well as in its letter.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I might say in answer to the question put to me by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine that it is not proposed to have any minister of the crown, as such on the board. Of course, that does not preclude the setting up of interdepartmental committees or cabinet committees, as everyone in this committee well knows. But there will be no minister of the crown on the board as such.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, my remarks are merely to the mover of the amendment by way of brief congratulations to him for bringing it forward. Just last week I had the opportunity of sharing a platform with the hon. member, and he spent a great deal of his time expressing grave doubts about the power of trade union organizations in Canada, and where they had led some of the trade unions. He expressed considerable fears about the democracy which seemed to prevail in some Canadian unions, including one that is very prominent in his own constituency, namely the steelworkers. Therefore, I can assure him that he has had some kind of revelation in the last few days and is now prepared to put a great deal of faith in the trade union elite.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the amendment carry?


John Carr Munro: I did not have the dubious honour of hearing what the hon. member for Port Arthur had to say. However, if it was anything similar to his usual remarks, I do not think I missed a great deal.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the clause as amended carry?


William Arnold Peters: I was very much interested in the amendment which has been accepted by the government. However, I think we may have overlooked the fact that in establishing-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The amendment is carried. Shall clause 3 as amended carry?


William Arnold Peters: No. I am speaking on the clause as amended. We have now had considerable discussion on what I would consider to be the 27507-3-205
establishment of half of the council, namely the half that produces the ideas and brings forth the representations from the various organizations and agencies of this country. If this is really going to be a planning board, I think it should have a planning section. In order to do this I suggest that we must have on the board people who have special qualifications in the matter of planning. This board should be a continuous thing. There should be attached to the board people who have high technical skills in planning our national economy, who have knowledge of economics and of the various technical fields with which the board will be dealing. For this reason I should like to move an amendment to clause 3, establishing the clause now amended as subclause 1 and adding subclause 2 to read as follows:
At least one half of the members of the board shall consist of persons with professional, technical, academic or scientific qualifications.
I believe that this amendment is important in order to give continuity and in order to establish a board which will have available to it the advice required in order to put into effect the ideas that will be produced by the representatives of the labour movement, the business community and the other organizations which the government has now agreed will be asked by the governor in council to make representation to the board. I think this amendment will provide a balance between the two sections of the board, namely the planning section and the idea section. I believe this amendment, if accepted will strengthen the board and will eliminate some of the problems which have developed in other boards where this principle has not been given effect.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: The hon. gentleman has made a plea that the board should in one half of its membership consist of technically qualified persons. Superficially that suggestion may be attractive. If one looks at the matter superficially, it would appear that you should have certain experts as members of the board. However, when one analyses the matter he finds that the place for the experts surely is with the technical staff itself, something which is provided for in another clause of the bill to which the committee will come at a later stage.
If the hon. gentleman's amendment were to carry, one would have difficulty in interpreting what is professional, what is technical, what is academic and what is scientific. One would also have the further difficulty of determining what balance there should be
3242	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board between professional, technical, academic and scientific. The words themselves, in my opinion, are not mutually exclusive. Indeed,
I see no reason why one who is academic should not also be professional or why one who is scientific should not also be technical. In that respect the amendment perhaps presents some difficulty with regard to interpretation.
What I suggest to the committee is that the discretion and the power which will exist in the governor in council under subclause 1, particularly with the amendment making it representative of trade unions, farmers and other groups, will better enable the representative character to be carried out and will not confine the membership to the extent that is suggested by this amendment. In the mutual exclusiveness of the various four functions here I suggest there is something which ought not to be accepted by the committee.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I rise to support the amendment that has been placed before the committee by the hon. member for Timiskaming. We in this party believe that if we are going to have a genuine planning board, it must include not only representatives of economic groups who will of necessity serve on a part time basis, but also planners trained in economics, statistics and various other fields; planners who will be able to devote their full time to planning the future of the economy; who will be able to lay down a blueprint for Canada's economy; who will be able to chart a course in order to make sure that Canada's economy does not run upon the shoals of recession and depression.
We believe this means we must have full time people on the planning board who are doing the planning, who work together with representatives of economic groups, representatives appointed by those economic groups. We believe these planners must be full time people giving their full attention and directing their whole activities to genuine planning. If this board is going to work we believe the amendment that has been offered to the committee by the hon. member for Timiskaming is absolutely essential.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Before we vote on the amendment I think there is something we are entitled to know from the minister. This afternoon he assured us that there had been discussions between representatives of industry and commerce on the national productivity council and representatives of labour on the council and that they had agreed that their views had been taken into consideration before this bill was brought in. If that is so, can the minister explain why the president of the national productivity council


would pose such a question as that contained in Canadian Business which I just read. Surely the committee is entitled to know that before we vote on this amendment or before we vote on the clause.


George Clyde Nowlan: I apologize to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for not having answered his question earlier. I overlooked it unfortunately when I was on my feet a moment ago. All I can say in reply to his question is that this bill was drafted after full consultation with the chairman of the productivity council. He approved of the draft. We discussed it with him. He sat in for hours and hours while the bill was being drafted. I am not responsible for what may appear in any publication, as the hon. member knows. However, I think any difficulty which has arisen as a result of this article is more apparent than real. As I said, I can give the hon. member and the committee assurance of the fact that this whole matter was given careful consideration with the member who is a good friend of the hon. member for Vancouver South, and a good friend of my own, namely the chairman of the productivity council, and he approves of this draft. As I said, I am not responsible for what appeared in a Canadian business publication but I can assure the hon. member there is no difficulty on that score.
As far as the amendment moved by the hon. member is concerned, I suppose nothing could be more innocuous. It provides that at least one half of the members of the board shall consist of professional, technical, academic or scientific people. I am sure everybody in this chamber tonight is either professional or academic or scientific or technical, either a technical politician or a technical farmer or something of that kind. I could not think of anything more innocuous. However, the hon. member for Hamilton East has moved an amendment which the government has accepted and that amendment says that the government shall appoint these people after consultation with these various groups. I think perhaps there is some conflict between the two amendments.
We have accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton East. As far as I am concerned I could not care less, but I do not think this amendment amounts to anything more than words. I am not prepared to accept or reject it but I would point out that we have already accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton East.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: Yeas, 71; nays, 82.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the amendment lost.
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
On clause 4-Appointment of chairman.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to inquire from the minister why the words "during good behaviour" have been included in subclause 1 which now reads as follows:
The chairman of the board shall be appointed to hold office during good behaviour for such term not exceeding ten years, as is fixed by the governor in council.
I raise this point because it is my recollection that the words "good behaviour" are missing from the similar clause in the bill establishing the Atlantic development board. According to the Minister of National Revenue, who presented the Atlantic development board bill, the reason for leaving out those words was, as found on page 2519 of Hansard for December 10 last:
-an advisory board which we hope would consist of outstanding men who would be giving their services without remuneration. I believe such men should not have a clause in the bill reflecting on their behaviour.
Then he went on to say:
Men who are donating their services should not be hamstrung with a phrase reflecting on their behaviour.
Am I to infer from this that it is the intention of the government to appoint men of lower calibre to this board than they have appointed to the Atlantic development board?
National Economic Development Board


Mr. Webster:: -began an editorial in this fashion, and I promise you, Mr. Chairman, that I shall not read the entire editorial:
Chronic unemployment is the ominous symptom of very deep seated troubles in the Canadian economy and unless there are basic changes in business thinking, in labour attitudes and in government policies it is doubtful, indeed, if Canada can grow and prosper.
That is the beginning of an editorial entitled "Wanted-A National Ministry of Foresight". The writer goes on later to advocate the appointment of a federal ministry of planning under a minister, of course. But I do remind you, sir, that the new board will be obliged to provide the Minister of Finance with the following as set forth in the words of the bill itself:
It shall be the duty of the board to furnish to the minister all such advice and information as will best assist the government of Canada in furthering a high and sustainable rate of economic growth in Canada, the strengthening of Canada's international financial and trade position and the achievement of the highest possible levels of efficient production and employment so as to ensure rising standards of living in all areas of Canada-
May I suggest that a board of this importance to the welfare of Canada needs a chairman who has the prestige and the authority of top cabinet rank, and in our view the most appropriate one is the Minister of Finance. Therefore I am pleased on behalf of this party to move:
That clause (1) be deleted substituted:
and the following
"(1) The minister shall be board."
chairman of the


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 4 carry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Will the minister answer? May I have an answer?


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


Arnold Alexander Webster: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to submit to subclause 1 of clause 4. The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the bill. It is designed to give the board the status which it merits in the public administration of this country. If property constituted and effectively administered the board could become the most important agency ever established by any Canadian government. However, to perform this outstanding service and to attain this status the chairman, in the opinion of the New Democratic party, must have at least cabinet rank. I wish to submit a rather surprising witness to substantiate the point I am making. More than a year ago the Financial Post, which is usually friendly to the government_


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The joke of the day.
27507-3-205J


Mr. Gordon:: Mr. Chairman, I once had a very interesting occupation as chairman of a committee that looked into the organization of government machinery in Ontario. One of the purposes of the committee was to examine the relationship of boards, commissions and other agencies, to the government and particularly to the elected representatives of the people.
It seemed to us that, in the first place, there is a useful and proper role for boards and commissions of various kinds, but their responsibilities should be clearly defined, and I must say I think the responsibilities of this particular board could be more clearly defined than they are set out in the bill. It was suggested to us that at least in some cases individual boards and commissions should have a minister of the crown on them, either as chairman or as a member. I remember concluding at that time, and I still feel strongly that it is inappropriate for a minister of the crown to sit as a member of a board, commission or agency of government, with other members who are not elected and who could outvote him.
3244	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board
If, as is proposed by the amendment, the Minister of Finance were the chairman of this particular board, and the other members decided that for some reason or other they did not have complete confidence in his judgment, that he was not attending to his business or was just being silly, they would be able to outvote him. While I am all in favour of the appropriate people being able to outvote the Minister of Finance from time to time, and as soon as possible, I do not think this should be the prerogative of appointed officials and appointed members of a board. I would feel this whether the Minister of Finance was to be chairman or just an ordinary member of the board. I think it is wrong in principle, and I for one will oppose the amendment.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Davenport and I very often agree on basic principles although we do not always say so, but I am happy tonight to say I agree entirely with the arguments advanced by him. I think it would be most inappropriate to have the minister on the board. If there were a very high salary, then you might persuade the Minister of Finance to retire and take over the job; but then he would cease to be the Minister of Finance. All I can say is that I concur entirely with the statements of the hon. member for Davenport, and that the government cannot accept the amendment which has been proposed.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would like to add I was not suggesting for a minute that the present Minister of Finance be got rid of in this way. There is no suggestion on the part of hon. members on this side of the house that the Minister of Finance should be bribed to vacate his present position. I think we will take care of that in due course.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, what has been said by the hon. member for Davenport and concurred in by the Minister of Finance is true of certain kinds of boards. There are some boards whose function is quasi-judicial and there are boards which are purely administrative. I would agree that with those two kinds of boards it would be most inappropriate to have a minister sitting on them.
In the case of a quasi-judicial board he would, of course, be accused of bringing political pressures to bear in reaching decisions which should be made outside government. That is why a quasi-judicial board is set up. In the matter of administrative boards the same type of accusation would be made and a board would lose some of its nonpartisan character, which is one of the main reasons for setting up administrative boards. However, in discussing this bill we have been repeatedly told that we are not talking


about a quasi-judicial or administrative board. We are here talking about a planning agency. But really, as the bill stands, this is not a planning agency. This is a large advisory committee with one full time chairman and a group of prominent people who meet periodically throughout the year and who will make some recommendations which the minister may or may not consider. This is not planning.
If this is really going to be a planning board then there has to be very close liaison between the board, which is making plans, and the cabinet, which must pass on those plans and submit them to the House of Commons. In our opinion the only effective way you could have that kind of liaison is to have the minister himself preside as chairman of the board, in order to guide and participate in the deliberations of the board and to take the plans from the board to the cabinet. Otherwise this will not be a planning agency. This will be little more than an advisory board doing exactly what is done now by the productivity council.
This is why we think in this kind of planning agency there is a very vital principle to be considered, and that is close liaison with the policy making organization in democratic government, namely the cabinet. The only way to have that is to have the minister himself as chairman of the board.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I just heard some fine pronouncements on state planning. I personally think that there is no need for any state planning. Indeed, if I have some planning to do, I am perfectly able to do it myself. Therefore we do not need such planning by the state which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) just suggested.
It is quite enough to see that the United States does the planning for the Liberal party, without this country's government also subjecting itself to planning.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. To my mind, the hon. member's remarks have nothing to do with the amendment which the committee is now discussing; I am sure that the hon. member will try to relate his remarks to the debate on the amendment so that they may be relevant to the matter under discussion.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Chairman.
With regard to the amendment, I just wanted to say that I objected to what I would call a kind of state planning as suggested by the amendment now before the house.
As a matter of fact, such state planning implies that the blueprints for our economy

National Economic Development Board
be set up by some department, for instance the Department of Finance, instead of leaving this to the individual who is able to do so.
That is why we, on this side of the house, will oppose state planning as suggested by the amendment before us.
(Text):


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I rise for only one purpose. That is to say that when my hon. friend deplores planning by the government, being a comparatively recent convert to Social Credit he may not yet have had time to read the books of Major Douglas, who advocates among other things the establishment of a just price for every commodity on the market from shoe-laces to airplanes. If my hon. friend can tell me how to set a just price for everything on the market without planning, I should like to know how he proposes to do it.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have read the books written by Major Douglas, which the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has just mentioned, and I can tell him how fair prices could be established without state planning. It could be done through the simple application of the law of supply and demand which remains the best way of controlling the economic relationship between individuals, between producers and consumers.
(Text):


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, in focusing on this clause I believe we are confronted with the nature of the planning process. The group in the far corner, the New Democratic party, have extolled to the government the effectiveness of the French system of planning. At the very top in the French system they have a conseil du plan which consists of no less than 57 members. This is not even an advisory board; it is, in the language of the London Economist, a "talking shop". It is not at all effective. The group that is really effective is the staff, the secretariat which works, under the chairman, with the industries of France. Essentially there are some 3,000 members who work with some 300 industry committees. These industry committees are substantially voluntary bodies set up by labour and management.
That to my mind is much more democratic than a hard and fast board at the top which makes the laws, in effect, tells the cabinet, the elected representatives of the people, what policies should be followed and passes directives on to industry. I am for the more democratic process, the one which sets up a board which is purely advisory. Put all the representatives you want on it from different walks of life and interests, certainly, but let
it be more a talking shop than a board which gives orders to the rest of the economy.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, I think a word ought to be said in reply to the misleading statements just made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. The amendment offered to the committee by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was designed to make sure that we have responsible planning, democratic planning. We believe that the planning board ought to have as its chairman a minister of the crown responsible to parliament and the people. I take it this is something that is opposed both by the minister and those who sit in the official opposition.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, even the hon. members of the official opposition can understand that if you have a planning board chaired by a minister of the crown, that it will be a planning board which is responsible to the elected representatives of the people in this parliament-far more so and to a much greater extent than a planning board which has no direct responsibility to this parliament.
It will have to be the responsibility of the federal cabinet to act as the ultimate planning agency, because after all the cabinet is responsible to the parliament of Canada, to the elected representatives of the people and to the people of Canada as a whole. Surely all hon. members in this house ought to be able to rid themselves of such pejorative cliches as "state planning" and "controls" and ought to be able to see at last that it is time we caught up with the rest of the world and adopted genuine, responsible, democratic, economic planning.


Rémi Paul: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Webster) negatived: Yeas, 13; nays, 125.


Rémi Paul: I declare the
amendment lost.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that this time the Liberals have supported the Conservatives. I want this to be mentioned in Hansard.
(Text):


Rémi Paul: Shall clause 4 carry? (Translation):


Mr. Cook:: Mr. Chairman, in subsection (1) of section 4, we read the following:
The chairman of the board shall be appointed to hold office during good behaviour for such term not exceeding ten years, as is fixed by the governor in council.
3246	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Economic Development Board A similar term of ten years is also mentioned in subsection (3) of the same section.
Now, I believe that we should think this over, as we have deplored in past years that persons had been appointed by the Liberal government of that day to important positions, for a long term, and now we must go on putting up with them, even though they are not experienced as they should be.
I feel that this national economic development board, the establishment of which we are approving, is a body which should bring positive results as soon as possible.
That is why I think that a 10 year period would be too long. The chairman could always be reappointed after a certain time, if his services are really satisfactory.
To that end, I should like to move the following amendment to this clause:
I move, seconded by Mr. Plourde, that subsections 1 and 3 of section 4 of Bill C-87 be amended and that the words: for such term not exceeding ten years
be replaced by the words: for such term not exceeding five years.
I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) to study this amendment closely and to accept it.


Rémi Paul: Order. Mr. Cook moves that subsections 1 and 3 of section 4 be amended by having the words: for such term not exceeding ten years
replaced by the words: for such term not exceeding five years.
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member who has moved the amendment was good enough to tell me a little while ago of his intention to do so and in the short interval which has elapsed since then I have been giving this matter some consideration. Ordinarily, I think, the difference between an appointment for five years or for ten years would be a matter on which no great issue could be taken but, as I told the committee yesterday when we were debating this point, I believe we have to appoint to this board as chairman someone who is outstanding in the economic life of Canada- someone who will command the respect, admiration and support of people in business and industrial life throughout the country. I will put this to the hon. member who has just moved the amendment, as well as to other members of this committee: would it be possible to obtain a man of that calibre if the appointment were limited to five years?
Theoretically it might be possible. One might be able to go out of here tonight and put a finger on a person of this kind prepared to serve in this capacity for five years, but I suggest one would probably be faced with 
the consideration of someone who was relatively young and inexperienced-someone starting out in life who would be prepared to accept the appointment as a highly satisfactory one-someone, it is true, who might grow into the position. Alternatively one would probably be considering a man on the verge of retirement. I do not think these are the type of appointments which the government has in mind. This appointment is the key to the situation. If this committee believes in a productivity board, as hon. members have all said they do, I suggest it would be most improbable that we should get a person of the calibre we are seeking to come to this board and serve for a period of five years. Anyone who has practical knowledge of these matters will realize the difficulties with which we would be confronted.
I have no time now to go over the other boards which have been appointed by governments, preceding governments as well as this government, but I doubt very much if there are any on which the chairman has been appointed for periods of less than seven years. Most of them have been appointed for ten years. Let hon. members cast their eyes at the various boards-the tariff board, the income tax board and all the rest-which come within the framework of the Canadian economy. I suggest seriously to this committee that the amendment should not be accepted, because by so doing we would seriously prejudice the government in its selection of the type of man we would want to occupy this position.


Mr. Ryan:: Would the minister accept a seven year period?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I understand it, what the minister is saying is that he cannot get someone to take this position unless there is provision for a ten year tenure.


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not say that. What I did say was that I doubted very much if it would be possible to get the type of man we want for this position unless the appointment was for ten years. I did not say it would be impossible. Anyway, until the committee and parliament have passed this bill we are not making any appointments to this position.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since June 18, particularly, we have had a series of appointments made by this government which, though they were mostly of people who were elected or failed to be elected to this house at one time or another, have not inspired in me very much confidence that the primary qualification which the government looks for in appointments is competence. There never has been, I think, at any time in the history of Canada such widespread patronage as there has been

in appointments since June 18. I am not questioning the good faith or the good intentions of the minister, but it will not be the minister who will make the final decision in this matter; it will be the minister's leader, in whose judgment in these matters I have no confidence whatsoever based upon the quality of the appointments he has made in the past nine months.
It seems to me that for us to vest in this minority government the power to make appointments of this character for this length of time would be a most irresponsible thing to do, if it can be avoided. For that reason it seems to me that since an amendment of a reasonable character has been offered it would be a desirable thing to support it. Moreover, I doubt that anyone would be inspired with very much confidence in any tenure under this government after the way they treated the former governor of the Bank of Canada. The notion that anything put into a statute could be any protection for anyone as long as the hon. gentleman who is Minister of Justice-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Rémi Paul: I am sure the hon. member realizes that he is now going too far from the clause or the amendment. I hope he will give me his co-operation by making his remarks relevant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid that because of the interruptions from the other side Your Honour was not able to hear me, because I was discussing the tenure of office of the chairman of this board in the light of experiences we have had. If that kind of argument is not permitted in committee I do not know what it would be possible to say that would be relevant. But I do maintain that no one who displeases the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice can count upon his security as long as those two gentlemen occupy the treasury benches. In addition it occurs to me that to give this moribund government any more power than need be given to it would be a mistake. For that reason I am inclined to vote for the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am happy on this occasion to rise and support the minister in his contention. I thought he stated the case very well, and because it is the custom of members of this party to approach these problems in a constructive and non-partisan way, I do not hesitate to say so. We believe that in this instance the minister gave sound reasons for his point of view. We do not think we should play politics with a serious matter of this sort. We do not hesitate to put forward our point of view when we disagree with the government or with the opposition, and since this is
National Economic Development Board an occasion when we agree with the government I should like to reiterate something which the minister has said, but in my own words.
Anyone with any knowledge of administration would realize that we are not going to get the type of man required to be the chairman of a board such as this, possibly a man of middle age or close thereto, to undertake such a large scale and important job when he is faced with retirement after five years. There is always a safeguard: if a person appointed to this important position is not fulfilling the position to the satisfaction of the government or the people of Canada, there are other ways of seeing that the situation is corrected.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will reconsider what he has said with respect to accepting this amendment. Because surely all the arguments he advanced are answered in subclause 3 of this clause where it states very clearly that the chairman or any other member can be reappointed. I bring this matter up only because if during the five year period the chairman proves that he is doing the job in line with what is anticipated as a result of the board, he can be reappointed for a further five year period. Then we would avoid invoking subsection (4) and the embarrassment and difficulties which would go with that, as mentioned by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate a few minutes ago, I would hope that the minister would reconsider this matter, because surely if this chairman does do his job properly he can be reappointed for another five year term.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, as usually expected from a historian, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has given us something to think about, reaching as he did back into recent and not so recent history to indicate that this may be a worth-while amendment. He has presented us with a bit of a dilemma since he put the case so well, such as the point that this government has perhaps been guilty of a certain amount of patronage. Some of us have had this argument somewhat neutralized because we have a bit of an historical perspective ourselves. We can go back to that golden age of Canadian politics which we heard about last night, when nostalgia flowed and we were back to the golden age of the 22 years. In this period we had a government in power which was so upright that it would never, of course, be guilty of anything like patronage. But since its defeat we have had revealed a peculiar kind of back door or swing door patronage. I wonder whether we really can accept the arguments made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I am thinking of the hon.
3248	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board member himself as an example, perhaps, of this back door patronage. After all, he had an important position in the civil service, and suddenly he is stood forth and revealed as a Liberal with a capital "L". We have had such people as Mr. Drury, who was a deputy minister, and suddenly he is stood forth as a Liberal with a capital "L".


Rémi Paul: Order. I would ask the hon. member to make some remarks which have relevancy to the amendment now before the committee moved by the hon. member for Hamilton East.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that you cannot see the relevance of this to the historical argument which has been presented. The relevance is that if the Drurys and the Sharps and the Pickersgills, and people like these, have been revealed belatedly as partisans, how can we place any trust in this particular argument? Therefore as far as we are concerned, we have to take, as the hon. member for Kootenay West said, an objective non-partisan point of view and decide to support the argument of the minister. But it certainly does not seem right to me that we can accept the general indictment that was drawn by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-


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


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, or did I, get any 10 year guarantee when we went into public life?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, I am afraid that it is never too late for these things to happen, Mr. Chairman. I should like to say to the hon. member that he must have been given some kind of guarantee. After all, Mr. Chairman, with all those majorities in Bonavista-Twillingate there seems to be almost a guarantee given by somebody.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, after this interesting exchange into retroactive patronage, perhaps we had better get back to the question of the appointment of the chairman. I also find myself in agreement with the minister, and for the first time since this debate commenced. I think that if we are to have a chairman of this body, about which I still have great doubts, then he will have to have some security of tenure. I was not at all impressed with the argument of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, which was that the chairman can be reappointed. That would be true if we had a provision for appointing him for six months and you could reappoint him every


six months; but I suggest that it would be a rather peculiar character who would accept appointment on that score. I am more interested in what are to be the functions of this chairman than in his personality.
I was interested earlier this evening to hear the hon. member for Coast-Capilano draw some comparisons between his idea of what this body should be, and the agencies for economic planning in France. I am sure he knows as well as I that the large council he referred to is a comparatively recent addendum to the planning agencies of France. The really important one has been the commissariat du plan which had very wide powers and which, moreover, as its first steps, took large strides in the field of public ownership and control of private enterprise. I think we should realize that in France this council is, as he suggested, merely a talking shop, and I suspect a screen erected at a later date to control the activities of the real planning agencies of France. In conclusion, I must say that I am surprised that any member of the Canadian House of Commons considers that this country is in need of another talking shop.


Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Chairman, may I say a word on this question. Some people suggested years ago before there was any recommendation by the Gordon commission for this kind of board that there might be great advantage to Canada in making money available-perhaps one might suggest the sum of $20,000- for various departments so that the ministers of those departments could choose with some freedom the people who would be of assistance to them in formulating and integrating economic policy. They would account for this money to the Auditor General. This would leave with and repose in the cabinet and particularly those persons charged with the key ministries the opportunity to seek out the best economic guidance and help available to them as they chose to obtain it. Such a proposal would afford the minister the opportunity to make inquiries in fresh fields, and would enable him to be creative even with his own deputies and his own departmental heads. In the creation of the board I do not think any of us really want to see the duplication of a civil service, nor do we want to see erected in Canada something which is going to replace the cabinet from the standpoint of being the decisive policy-making organization of the country. That would be an idea which would certainly not appeal to me.
It seems to me very important, particularly in such portfolios as finance, trade and commerce, labour and so on, that there should be far more integration and co-operation between departments than we have had demonstrated over the past several years. One of

National Economic Development Board
the problems is this. Who is going to be the person integrating and actually helping with respect to this key advisory role? This is an important matter. Many Canadians do not think this particular ministry is going to survive for very long. Suppose it does not survive. Suppose this ministry is defeated or suppose it goes to the country shortly, not to return? Does it make sense then or is it conceivable that the kind of person who may be selected by the present ministry which in six years has been unable to make and formulate any economic plan of any kind whatsoever, long range or short range, is the kind of person who is then going to preside over an economic board that is going to be guiding the destinies of this country for the next ten years?
What is the situation? I submit that it is of great importance that the person who is going to be giving economic advice to the cabinet is the kind of person who is going to command the confidence of the cabinet actually from day to day, from week to week and from month to month. Of course we need the best kind of person available. It may very well be that the kind of person who would be appointed by the Minister of Finance or by the cabinet would, in fact, be the same kind of person that, for instance, a new Liberal government would appoint. It may well be that we admire the same kind of economic brains. There are not many people in Canada who are capable of doing this kind of job on a first rate scale. We should have to look hard in order to find the right kind of person.
But suppose we did not get the right kind of person. What the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate has indicated is that on the part of certain people on this side of the chamber there is a marked lack of confidence with respect to some of the appointments that have been made by this administration. Now, in their dying hours, does it make sense that for ten years they would be the people to determine who would be setting the economic course for Canada after they are perhaps no longer in a position to give any guidance or leadership and when they are not going to be in a position to be supported by those people over here? I refer to the Creditists. I submit that we may be in a position of a long tenure of office. We may be in a position of having to come to terms with the gentleman who is appointed by this administration and saying, "My dear sir, we honour you, we respect you, but we have got to pay you off, we have got to provide a pension, because you are not the kind of person who should be setting the fortunes for this country".
27507-3-206
Mr. Chairman, I wish to point this out. When we express ourselves on this kind of problem, our view must be responsible. It must be just as responsible in economics as it has been, for example, in my opinion in the field of defence. We must consider the likelihood that we shall be running Canada shortly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Dreamer.
Another hon. Member: Put it out of your mind.


John Ross Matheson: I hear some interjections, Mr. Chairman. Some one says to put it out of our mind. However, may I say that the burden of the Liberal party today is that we must have it in our minds all the time. Everything we recommend in the field of economics or finance is simply predicated on the fact that we cannot do the popular, the easy or the sloppy thing. We must do the thing which is likely to produce the best results when in a few months we will have the duty of running the show.


Rémi Paul: Order. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the amendment is to change the term of the chairman from five years to 10 years. I think that is the only question we have to discuss now.


John Ross Matheson: On the occasion on which I was introduced to the twenty fourth parliament a day in June of 1961-


An hon. Member:: A sad one.


John Ross Matheson: My friend on the government side says it was a bad thing.


An hon. Member:: A sad thing.


John Ross Matheson: However, on that sad or bad occasion my introduction to parliament was to observe the present Minister of Justice, then rejoicing in the portfolio of minister of finance, telling the country how he felt compelled to get rid of Mr. Coyne. This formed in my mind an unforgettable impression.


Rémi Paul: I am sure that the hon. member in his remarks will give his co-operation and that he will try to limit them to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet.


John Ross Matheson: What I am saying is this, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps partly as a result of being elected in four general elections which covered 22 years, we know what this means. As a party we know what this means.


Rémi Paul: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that he read

National Economic Development Board article 35 of the rules. I would ask him to make his comments relevant to the amendment under consideration.


Mr. Maiheson:: Mr. Chairman, I will be entirely relevant. What I am saying to the committee is this. It is our Liberal tradition and our attitude to honour appointments made, to work with people who are in the public service and to do so co-operatively and fully. In order to do this we think it is rather important that there not be a return to this type of Coyne episode, one which shook this country and shook the financial structure of Canada not very many months ago and which was perhaps the beginning of a sharp economic decline-and certainly a monetary decline.
We naturally expect that appointments will be made in these dying hours. We expect that situation. There have been many such appointments in these dying hours of this twenty fifth parliament. We are going to work with these people who may be appointed. We are going to work with them as honourably and in as trusting a manner as possible. We are going to work with all people who have served Canada faithfully in the public service and are not going to deride them and tear them to pieces. It is our tradition to treat these people as some of the great people of Canada. But we have a responsibility now, with a key position, the appointment of an economic chairman who will be influencing the economic destinies of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.
Clause 4 stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the house will do tomorrow and the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will be on estimates, Mr. Speaker, starting with the Department of Labour. If that department is completed, then we shall take the Post Office Department.


Lionel Chevrier: Does that mean that we shall be on estimates on Thursday and Friday as well?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that is quite likely. If we complete those departments, we will call another one.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader if he can tell the house whether there will be a supply motion on Monday, as he has already indicated to the press.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think everybody was anticipating a supply motion on Monday and I can say that is the present intention.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 30, 1983