1963-07-17

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning a matter that is found on page 2234 of Hansard. My question of privilege, stated briefly, is that I suggest with the greatest respect that the Secretary of State misinformed the house yesterday, and did it deliberately, in respect of a question that I put to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I should like to review the facts relating to this question of privilege. My question was this:
Is it not a fact that Banks was admitted to Canada by a special order in council of the previous government?
Then the Secretary of State said:
That is not a fact.
I did not have the facts with me at the time because the report of Mr. Justice Norris had just come out. I did just mention that at the time. I shall read the question of privilege I raised then:
On a question of privilege, the Secretary of State denied an assertion which I made a few minutes ago, but I have now found the reference in support of what I had to say. I wish to read from page 312 of the report of the industrial inquiry commission on the disruption of shipping:
"The order in council of July 6, 1954, which authorizes Banks' admission to Canada, was based on the fact that there was satisfactory evidence of his rehabilitation. He was granted status as a landed immigrant."
Then the Secretary of State compounded and made much graver an already grave situation because as the minister of citizenship and immigration of the former Liberal government he should have known the facts. This is what he said:
It is correct that after Mr. Banks came to live in Canada he was given the status of a landed immigrant, but he was first admitted to Canada, it seems to me, immediately after the war and not at that time.
My question of privilege is this. This is a misstatement of fact. As the former minister of citizenship and immigration in the Liberal administration, the minister knew that a person is legally admitted to Canada
when he is granted landed status. I am sure the minister was aware of that. I should like to refer to section 5 of the Immigration Act, chapter 325 of the revised statutes of Canada, which reads as follows:
No person, other than a person referred to in subsection (2) of section 7, shall be admitted to Canada if he is a member of any of the following classes of persons:
Then paragraph (d) definitely affected Banks' admission to Canada, and it reads as follows:
Persons who have been convicted of or admit having committed any crime involving moral turpitude, except persons whose admission to Canada is authorized by the governor in council upon evidence satisfactory to him...
At that time the Liberal government-that was in July, 1954-passed a special order in council admitting Banks to Canada. I suggest in this question of privilege that if that order in council were now rescinded Banks would go back from whence he came. I say the minister committed a grave misrepresentation when he misrepresented the fact that it was his government which brought Banks into Canada.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. gentleman has said is perhaps good evidence of the desirability of certain hon. members of the house-and I am not referring to the hon. gentleman but to myself-keeping their mouths shut. What I said was literally quite correct, that Mr. Banks was in Canada and had been in Canada for quite some time, at the time that order in council was passed. Therefore in the normal sense of the word he was not admitted, because he was here. He had been admitted as a visitor a number of years before, and had been living in Canada for several years before this question that he should be given the status of a landed immigrant came up.
I do think that when the hon. gentleman brought the matter up on a question of privilege yesterday, I explained quite accurately what the situation was. I had no intention whatsoever of misleading the house, and if in any way I did in fact mislead any hon. member of the house, or any other person in Canada, I apologize; and I accept my full share of responsibility for the order in council that was passed in 1954.

Question of Privilege (Translation):



CORRECTION IN THE &quot;PARLIAMENTARY GUIDE&quot;

Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenieuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I regret that the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) is not in the house, because my question concerns him. However, I should think that it will be possible for him to read my remarks in the official record and then he can give the necessary explanation.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house a fact which reflects on the honour and pride of all members sitting on this side. Indeed, it is with amazement that my colleagues and I read the curriculum vitae published at page 258 of Mr. Normandin's Canadian Parliamentary Guide, 1963 edition. Under Mr. Gilbert Rondeau's name, one reads, among other things:
Mem. cercles Lacordaire, St. Jean Baptiste society, league of the Sacred Heart and chamber of commerce. First elect. H. of C. at g.e. 1962. Pol. party, Liberal.
I can understand that the hon. member wishes to be taken for a Liberal, because it is not the only effort he has made to that effect. But I should like him to know that such a desire is not shared by all members in this house.
Besides, the thousands of people who voted for the Liberal candidate in the Shefford riding did so because they wanted-just like all of us, by the way-Mr. Gerard Lacaille to sit in the House of Commons.
I raised that matter, Mr. Speaker, so that this untrue statement does not appear in the 1964 Parliamentary Guide. As far as I am concerned, I propose to write to the editor, Mr. Normandin, this afternoon, so that he will make the necessary correction on page 258 of the Parliamentary Guide and inform all subscribers.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Since this matter concerns one of our colleagues who is at the present time seriously ill in bed, it is proper that I should make a corrective statement on his behalf.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is up to the hon. gentleman concerned to speak for himself and not to have one of his colleagues speak for him. Questions of privilege are supposed to be very rare. They are very precious to the house, and I would leave the matter there. We have listened with interest to the statement of privilege. Perhaps it was a bit overstated; nevertheless I think we should leave it there.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on this question
[Mr. Pickersgill.i
because our colleague is sick at home and cannot be here to express his opinion of the matter just raised by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin).


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has already accomplished his purpose, so may I suggest we proceed.
(Translation):

On the orders of the day:


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Does he intend to take the necessary steps to prevent the members of the house from being publicly and falsely called Liberals against their will, in spite of the truth and in opposition to their ideas?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a question of privilege. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Lapointe who a moment ago was out of order and was called to order, is trying to ask a question and obtain a reply which I am unable to give him, since it deals with a question of privilege.
(Text):



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's) presented the fourth and fifth reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the report just presented I move, seconded by Mr. Cooper:
That Bill No. S-15 as reported be referred back to the committee on miscellaneous private bills for reconsideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret having to tell the hon. member, who discussed this matter briefly with me before the opening of the house, that in my opinion, while I understand his concern, the proper time for moving this motion is not now, because in effect there is no bill before the house; there is no motion to concur in this report. Therefore I suggest to him that the proper time is during the private bills period between five and six o'clock on Thursday, which is tomorrow. I think that is the time the hon. member should present his motion, if the bill is then before the house.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order which you have just raised, and in connection particularly with the last remark of Your Honour, the bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again, but I was not making a point of order; I was making a ruling. The hon. member perhaps should have listened a little more attentively or closely to that ruling.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, am I not to be permitted to set out my point of order-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: -because I am going to state that under the rules, especially standing order 110, this bill will not be placed on the order paper. I refer particularly to standing order 110, the last part of which says:
-and no bill, the preamble of which has been reported as not proven, shall be placed upon the orders of the day unless by special order of the house.
This would prohibit the bill in question being placed upon the orders of the day on private members' hour. Therefore if it is the ruling of the Chair that I may discuss the matter on private members' hour tomorrow afternoon at five o'clock, I am quite satisfied to do that. But I want to raise the question now because I do not want to be met tomorrow afternoon with the statement that the bill is not on the order paper, and under standing order 110 it cannot be put on the order paper. If Your Honour would permit me to enlarge upon this point, I would like to draw the situation to the attention of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. I realize his concern, and perhaps properly so. I have not sufficient details upon which to really decide the matter at the moment. May I suggest that this matter be postponed until tomorrow; that in the interval I have the opportunity of going into the matter and, if necessary, speaking with the hon. member and reaching a just and proper conclusion.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am quite happy to accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I have quite a number of authorities which I do want to present to the house.



HIGHWAYS


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on July 15 the Prime Minister indicated that I would make a statement as the result of a meeting which he and I had with a delegation from the Yel-lowhead route association. On July 12 the Prime Minister and I received a brief from the Yellowhead association which was presented in person by Mr. William Hawrelak as president of that association.
National Highway Policy
The brief made two main points; one, to request the federal government to establish a policy on federal aid to the provinces for the construction of main highways; and second, to recommend that in any such federal aid provision be made for the construction of the Yellowhead route as early as possible. In the past few weeks the government has received other delegations and briefs requesting that we take some action on the formulation of a national highway policy.
In reply to questions from hon. members I recently reported in this house that I had been in touch with the ministers of highways of all provinces to make arrangements for meetings between the provincial officials and officials of my department. I should like to advise the house that the purpose of these meetings with the provincial officials is to collect information, construction schedules and possible problems on the present federal-provincial highway projects as well as to receive suggestions from the provinces on what they felt would be the role of the federal government in the highway field. Over the years the federal government has received a variety of proposals for extending the federal-provincial highway arrangements, and as might be expected the desires of all areas were not always the same. The present review is to gain a picture of the provincial thinking at this stage.
I am in a position to report that discussions have taken place with the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and in Quebec, where at this stage time has permitted dealings with only the trans-Canada highway. Discussions are at this date taking place in St. John's, Newfoundland and on the 19th in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Discussions with the western provinces are planned to start July 25.
It is our intention, once information has been collected and reviewed by the government, that I will have discussions with the ministers of highways, when we could discuss policies, but with the information obtained, based on a factual background of programs and possible expenditures. Once this has been done it is our intention to have a federal-provincial conference which would give consideration to a relationship between the federal and provincial governments in the highway field. It is hoped, subject to the reaction of the provinces, that this conference could take place this fall.
With reference to the question of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in connection with the request for a second trans-Canada highway, I wish to say that this can be dealt with only after consultation with the provinces.

National Highway Policy


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Minister of Public Works intends to consult with the provinces in respect to this i^ery important question. Indeed, the matter of assistance on the part of the federal government to the provinces for road building goes back, as I recall it, to 1919, when under the government of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen provision was made for some $20 million assistance in this connection.
The convening of the conference is a worthy step. It is necessary and is in keeping with the responsibilities which are inherent in our constitution. However, as to the question of the Yellowhead highway, extending from Portage ia Prairie through Edmonton to the Yellowhead pass, I would point out that there seemed to be general agreement on this during the election campaign. The Prime Minister, as I recollect it, agreed on behalf of his party that this was one thing that would be done. I followed a similar course, and had somewhat earlier believed this to be a matter of national importance in the building and the strengthening of the fabric of confederation. I hope this route receives early attention.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: We are pleased to have this report from the minister, and we are looking forward to the results of the proposed meeting with the various provincial governments in connection with this important matter. For a number of years we have been advocating a national highway system for Canada, and I would hope that in consequence of the broad policy which may come out of these meetings such a system of highways would be forthcoming. The participation of the national government must, I think, reflect the arrangements made with the provinces on fiscal matters. If the government of Canada is taking the lion's share of taxes it must naturally take on additional responsibilities.
Regarding the Yellowhead route, we are aware there is some confusion as to where the second trans-Canada highway may go after it passes Jasper. It has been proposed that it should turn south to Kamloops and on to Vancouver, but I should like to point out that its location should be what is known as highway 16 through to Prince Rupert down the highway which will be built simultaneously, as the province of British Columbia has stated on more than one occasion, with the highway through Tete Jaune Cache down through Blue River.
We are very interested in this project and are hoping for some real progress in connection with a highway system in Canada.
TMr. Deschatelets.]


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: The Minister of Public Works is to be commended for taking the preliminary step of calling together the ministers of highways of the various provinces of Canada to discuss the matter of a second trans-Canada highway. Several of the provinces have completed their portions of the first trans-Canada highway. In some cases the work was completed several years ago. They are now anxious to proceed with a second highway, and if one takes account of the increasing motor traffic in Canada one can realize how urgently it is required.
I hope two other matters will be discussed at this conference. The first is the possibility of north-south traffic of an international character. If the tourist trade is to be encouraged there should be a tremendous improvement in the highways which bring in tourist traffic. This is too large a burden for the provinces themselves to assume and it might well become a joint project. The other matter concerns the maintenance of these highways. At the present time the entire cost of maintenance falls on the provincial governments. When there was only one trans-Canada highway they could meet it, but if there is to be an enlarged area of federal participation in highway construction it seems to me some plan should be worked out for joint participation in responsibility for maintaining these roads.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works with regard to the statement he made this afternoon on the proposed national highway policy. Has he received representations with regard to the Howse pass from the people promoting this very favourable route through the central part of Alberta as part of a second trans-Canada highway?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member realizes this is a question for the order paper.
(Translation):



GOOD FEELING BETWEEN THE PROVINCES AND OTTAWA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, could I put a question to the Minister of Public Works? During the recent talks with the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick concerning the trans-Canada highway, was any mention made of

greater flexibility in the application of joint programs by giving an option to those provinces?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, we have only reached the stage of consultation with the provincial ministers of highways. When the necessary data have been collected, a conference will be called and decisions will be taken in a spirit of mutual understanding, for, as the hon. member must know, the provinces have fully recovered their freedom since April 8.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Is the announcement made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) to apply also to the provinces, as far as the money being granted is concerned, if they do not want to participate?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, there are in the Liberal platform planks which relate to joint programs; as the hon. member knows, we intend to keep our promises.
(Text):



RIGHTS OP WAY FOR TRUNK HIGHWAYS THROUGH NATIONAL PARKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, but I notice he stepped out of the chamber just a moment ago and perhaps it could be taken as notice. Could the question of providing right of way for trunk highways through national parks be put on the agenda of the meeting with the provinces which the minister mentioned in his statement on motions?


Hon. J. Watson MacNaught (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall refer that question to the Minister of Public Works, who had to leave to catch an aeroplane.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before questions are called, may I say I have had a word with the spokesmen of the parties opposite and the opinion has been expressed that a good deal of the time of the house might be saved during the question period if it were indicated in advance just which questions on the order paper were being answered and which were
Questions
being made orders for returns, so that Your Honour would only have to call the starred questions. With the approval of the house I am in a position to do that today. This is only to be undertaken as an experiment between now and such time as we adjourn, to see whether it does in fact facilitate the business. If there is no objection I will proceed to do that, but if there is any objection we will proceed, of course, in the normal way.
Highl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to object, but I have a suggestion I thought I might place before the house if I may be permitted to do so at this time. I suggest that each day questions come before the house the Secretary of State as government house leader, should notify the Speaker of those that will be stood and those that will be answered. I think that will save a great deal of time. The suggestion now made by the Secretary of State will receive full support, and I hope he will go even further. There is a great deal of time wasted in calling each day the numbers of questions that are stood for various reasons, generally for good reasons, but which none the less has the result of creating a very unsatisfactory situation from the point of view of getting on with the business.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the right hon. gentleman for his remarks. The questions that are being answered on behalf of the government are 421, 625, 763, 840, 868, 879, 887, 888, 889, 899, 902, 908, 910, 911, 930 and 933. There are no questions to be made orders for returns today, and if Your Honour will simply call the starred questions I should like to have the rest of the questions stood today.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Howard: Since March 31,	1950, has any money been
expended for a water system at the Indian village of Hartley Bay, B.C., and, if so, for each fiscal year since that time, what amount of money was so expended for (a) materials (b) travel expenses (c) wages to government officials (d) wages to Indians (e) wages to any contractor's employees (f) miscellaneous, and (g) total?


Mr. Munro:: Yes.

Questions
Year	(a) Materials	(d) Wages to Indians	(e) Contracts	(f) Misc.	(g) Total1950-51	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil1951-52	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil1952-53	$ 6,274.66	$ 290.00	nil	$ 240.00	$ 6,804.661953-54	1,475.82	6,460.80	$ 68.00	51.30	8,055.921958-59	2,349.15	1,887.23	nil	nil	4,236.381959-60	690.59	300.00	nil	nil	990.591960-61	1,205.12	3,000.34	nil	668.00	4,873.461961-62	827.33	450.38	nil	nil	1,277.711962-63	1,026.00	384.82	126.00	60.00	1,596.82$13,848.67	$12,773.57	$194.00	$1,019.30	$27,835.54
(b) and (c) Travel expenses and salaries of government officials are not apportioned to individual projects.


SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO MINES MINISTER
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys taken an executive assistant or a special assistant on staff and, if so, what is this person's name, age, place of birth, institutions of education and educational qualifications, governmental or business experience (position held, length of experience, name of firm) and initial and present salary with the government?
2.	What length of time has this assistant undertaken to serve the minister and/or what engagement in length of time was given to the assistant by the minister?
3. In brief, what particular qualities of this assistant led the minister to engage him?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. Yes, an executive assistant and a special assistant. Name of executive assistant: Mr. Orval J. T. Troy. Age: 39 years. Place of birth: Woodstock, New Brunswick.
Institutions of education and educational qualifications: Dalhousie University and Dal-housie law school, LL.B. 1951. Member of Nova Scotia barrister's society.
Experience: Royal Canadian Air Force-[DOT] 1942-1945. From 1945-63, news writer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; private law practice; executive director, Nova Scotia Liberal association.
Initial and present salary: $10,000 per annum.
2.	No length of time specified.
3.	Educational and legal background and experience.
1.	Name of special assistant: Mr. J. Lloyd Pelot. Age: 35 years. Place of birth: Ottawa, Ontario.
Educational qualifications: Ontario senior matriculation.
Experience: employee of Department of Mines and Technical Surveys since 1947. Now on temporary loan from departmental staff.
Salary: $6,450.
2.	Temporarily-no length of time specified.
3.	His experience and knowledge of the department and likely help to minister, all members of parliament and departmental officers.


PERSONS SENTENCED TO PREVENTIVE DETENTION
Mr. Howard: With respect to the 68 persons referred to in the answer to question 420, who are serving sentences of preventive detention (a) how many are known to be narcotic addicts and (b) what is the age of each (i) by provinces and (ii) length of detention by years?


Lionel Chevrier: (a) 7. Ontario, 1; Manitoba, 4; British Columbia, 2.
(b) (i) and (ii)-see following tables.
	(b) - (i) AGE OF EACH INMATE BY PROVINCES				
N.B. Que.	Ont.	Man. Sask.	B.C.	Total20 years	1	125 years	1	126 years	1	1	227 years	1	128 years	1	129 years	2	231 years	1	132 years	1	133 years	1	134 years	1	1	235 years	1	136 years	1	1
[Mr. Munro.l

Questions
Cb)-(i>
AGE OF EACH INMATE BY PROVINCES
N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	B.C.	Total37 years	1	1	1	1	438 years	2	3	539 years	2	1	1	2	640 years	1	141 years	1	1	242 years	1	1	1	343 years	1	144 years	1	1	1	345 years	1	1	2	446 years	1	1	1	347 years	1	1	249 years	1	1	250 years	1	151 years	1	152 years	1	2	353 years	1	154 years	2	256 years	1	158 years	1	159 years	1	160 years	1	1	261 years	1	1	264 years	1	165 years	1	17	4	18	8	12	19	68(b)-	(ii) LENGH	OF DETENTION BY	YEARS	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	B.C.	Totalless than	1 year	1	5	1	2	91 year	2	2	4	5	132 years	2	1	2	1	2	83 years	1	1	1	34 years	1	1	1	2	55 years	1	3	46 years	3	1	47 years	1	4	1	1	78 years	2	1	39 years	2	1	1	410 years	1	2	311 years	2	1	312 years	1	113 years	1	17	4	18	8	12	19	68


USE OF URANIUM IN ALLOYS
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	Is the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys carrying on any tests to determine the effect of uranium as an alloy in uranium steel alloy drills and with uro-steel pipe, cord and cable?
2.	Is the department studying possible uses for uranium in alloys with both ferrous and nonferrous metals and, if so, what have been the results of such tests and studies?


William Moore Benidickson: Mines branch staff in co-operation with industry are pursuing a
broad program of research and development on the use of uranium as an addition agent to metals and alloys. Although very comprehensive work on the utilization of uranium in steel has been accomplished with favourable results, particularly in the refining of steel and the production of drill rod material and steel alloys for pipes, it cannot be said at this stage that a major breakthrough resulting in commercial acceptance has been achieved.

Questions
The addition of uranium to non-ferrous metals provides a refining action resulting in properties such as the improved hot workability of copper, nickel, and their respective alloys.
Briefly, it can be said that although it is too early to fully evaluate the results of studies carried but in the mines branch laboratories, there are hopeful indications that uranium is moving toward a significant nonnuclear role in industry.


WIRED TELEVISION SYSTEM, GERALDTON, ONT.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Department of Transport licensed a wired television system in Geraldton, Ontario, and, if so, when, and to what organization (address, officers, etc.)?
2.	Has the D.O.T. checked this cable system at any time to discover if radiation from it may be affecting T.V. signals coming to residents using aerials, and, if so, when, with what results, and interpretations?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1. Two community antenna television systems have been licensed in Geraldton, Ontario:
(i)	Mr. Harry Assad-P.O. Box 1, Geraldton, Ontario, first licence issued April 29, 1960.
(ii)	Marino Hardware and Electric Co. Ltd., Box 14, Geraldton, Ontario, first licence issued April 9, 1962.
2. Yes, however, any difficulty in the reception of programs at Geraldton seems to be one of distance to the nearest television broadcasting station rather than one of interference. Geraldton is approximately 140 miles from Port Arthur and 215 miles from Marquette and accordingly it is outside the normal service area of stations WLUC-TV Marquette, Michigan and CFPA-TV Port Arthur, Ontario.
Normally the coverage for a fullpower television broadcasting station with a 500 foot antenna is considered to be out to a 57 mile radius for the low VHF band, channels 2 to 6. Satisfactory reception may be expected within this coverage area with a good outdoor antenna. Beyond this area it may be possible to locate sites, usually on relatively high ground, where television signals may be received with sufficient strength for satisfactory reception, provided a more elaborate receiving antenna and a properly aligned receiving set is used.
In some locations reception may be satisfactory on a long term basis, while at others it may be satisfactory for a while and then disappear completely for varying periods of time. These variations in reception are caused by the normal propagation characteristics of the frequencies used for television broadcasting and reception becomes more sporadic as the distance between the receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna is increased.

Mr. Harry Assad's system was inspected, following complaints, on March 28 and 29, 1962. There was some radiation at that time which was caused by the cable being repeatedly broken, by large trucks, during the winter and proper repairs could not be made due to the wintertime weather conditions. Mr. Assad was informed about appropriate corrective action to be taken. Departmental records indicate no complaints have been received since March 1962.


EXERCISE TOCSIN B
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Was exercise Tocsin B carried out in the fall of 1961?
2. If so (1) how many Soviet bombers were assumed to have taken part in this simulated attack (2) how many (a) H-bombs and (b) missiles were assumed to have landed on target in (i) Canada (ii) U.S.A. (3) how many (a) H-bombs and (b) missiles were assumed to have landed off target in (i) Canada (ii) U.S.A. (4) what was the megatonnage of the H-bombs and missiles which were assumed to have landed (a) on target (b) off target in (i) Canada (ii) U.S.A. (5) what percentage of (a) bombers (b) missiles were assumed to have been destroyed by the active air defences of NORAD (6) how many Soviet nuclear missile firing submarines were assumed to have taken part in this simulated attack, and how many missiles were they assumed to have fired (7) how many people were assumed to have been (a) killed (b) wounded in this simulated attack in (i) Canada (ii) U.S.A.?


Mr. Drury:: 1. Yes.
2. (1) As the exercise did not involve interceptor forces it was not necessary to assume any specific number of enemy bombers.
(2)	In order to engage the emergency measures and survival operations systems fully, the exercise plan called for 11 H-bombs and six nuclear warhead missiles to be assumed to have been detonated in specific areas in Canada. A total of 55 H-bombs and nuclear missiles were assumed to have been detonated on targets in the U.S.A., which would have been immediately important to Canada.
(3)	It was not necessary for the purposes of this exercise to assume any off target detonations.
(4)	(a) (i) 75; (a) (ii) 960; (b) (i) and (ii) not applicable.
(5)	As the exercise was not designed to test air defences, no assumptions in relation to aircraft or missile destruction were necessary.
(6)	The exercise setting did not differentiate between types of missile delivery.
(7)	It was calculated that detonations of the character postulated in the areas chosen would have resulted in 2,215,000 dead and 1,591,000 injured in Canada. No calculations were made in relation to the U.S.A.

Questions
NET FARM INCOME	FEDERAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS


Mr. Maiheson: What is the average net realized income of Canadian farm operators from farming operations, in constant dollars, for the year 1956 and the year 1962, using the index of prices of commodities and services used by farmers, including farm living costs, for converting the net income figures to constant dollars?


Mr. Sharp:: The following estimates of total realized farm net income from farming operations, in terms of constant dollars, have been prepared for Canada as prescribed in question 887. They are in terms of 1956 dollars: 1956, $1,238,093,000; 1962, $1,258,000,000.
It should be kept in mind that these estimates represent income from farming operations and do not include any income which farmers may have realized from off-far sources.
In order that averages may be calculated, the following information is provided:
1.	Number of farms in Canada i
On the basis of the 1956 census definition of a farm, there were 572,666 farms in Canada in 1956. For that census, a farm was defined as a holding on which agricultural operations were carried out and which was:
(a) three acres or more in size, or (b) from one to three acres, and with the agricultural product, in the calendar year prior to the taking of the census, valued at $250 or more.
On the basis of the same definition, there were 518,250 farms in Canada in 1961. However, the definition of a farm for the 1961 census of agriculture was changed and for that census a farm was defined as a holding of one acre or more with sales of agricultural products, during the 12 months preceding the taking of the census, valued at $50 or more. On the basis of this definition, the number of farms in Canada in 1961 amounted to 479,125.
2.	Number of farmers
From the above definition, it is apparent that there are many farms enumerated by the census which are operated by those who would be classified as other than farmers. Consequently, estimates are supplied concerning the number of farmers in Canada, as determined by the dominion bureau of statistics' labour force survey. This survey reported 534,000 farmers at June 1956 and 415,000 at June 1962.
1 Numbers of farms in Newfoundland, Yukon and Northwest Territories have been omitted in this instance, because the dominion bureau of statistics does not prepare farm income estimates for these regions.


Mr. Matheson: What was the proportion of federal transfer payments (a) including interest on the public debt and (b) excluding interest on the public debt, as a proportion of total personal income in each of the years 1956 to 1962 inclusive?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) A ratio of federal transfer payments including interest on the federal public debt is not available as a precise breakdown of interest between the portion received by persons and that received by other sectors cannot be made from the data available.
(b) Federal transfer payments excluding interest on the federal public debt formed the following proportion of personal income in the years 1956 to 1962 inclusive:
1956, 5.6 per cent; 1957, 6.3 per cent; 1958, 7.7 per cent; 1959, 6.9 per cent; 1960, 7.2 per cent; 1961, 7.1 per cent; 1962, 6.9 per cent.
(Translation):


BANK OF CANADA BID FOR 1983 BONDS
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	Has the Bank of Canada withdrawn its standing bid of $98.25 per $100 face amount on the Canada 4J per cent 1983 bond and, if so, what is the reason for this withdrawal?
2.	How has it affected the market for these and other Canada bonds?


Mr. Gordon:: 1. and 2. There is nothing I can add to the reply I made to a similar question by the hon. member for Perth on the orders of the day for July 9.
(Text):


GRANTS TO AGRICULTURAL EXHIBITIONS
Mr. Gauthier: What amount has the Department of Agriculture paid in grants to the agricultural exhibition of Canada during the year ended March 31, 1963, and, of this amount, what part of these grants has been awarded the province of Quebec during the same period?


Mr. Hays:: During the year ended March 31, 1963, an amount of $911,232 was paid to agricultural fairs and exhibitions, under the exhibition grants regulations, of which $142,173 was paid to associations in the province of Quebec. In addition, special grants as detailed in the estimates were paid to the Pacific national exhibition, Vancouver, and the Royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, totalling $401,758.


PURCHASE OF LANDS AND BUILDINGS, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Gauthier: What amount has the Department of Agriculture spent for the purchase of lands and buildings during the year ended March 31, 1963, and, of this amount, what part has been spent in the province of Quebec?

Questions


Harry William Hays: The Department of Agriculture spent during the year ended March 31, 1963, $65,400 for the purchase of lands and buildings for programs, excluding those associated with P.F.R.A. activities. Of this amount, none was spent in the province of Quebec. Under P.F.R.A. activities, expenditures during the year for this item amounted to $369,261.00, largely for land required in connection with the south Saskatchewan dam reservoir.


AIRPORT BUILDING, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Public Works to build a new airport building in London, Ontario and, if so, at what stage are plans as of now. and what is the proposed completion date?
2.	Have tenders been called for a new London airport building and, if so, has the contract been let, to whom, and for what amount?


Mr.   Mc@: 1 and 2. A new air terminal building will be erected at the London airport and working drawings for this building are in the final stages of completion. It is proposed to call tenders early in August and the optimum date for completion of the project is the midsummer of 1964.
(Translation):


ST. ALPHONSE DE GRANBY, QUE.  MAIL CONTRACT
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Does Mr. Emile Fournier, St. Alphonse de Granby, hold a contract for mail delivery and, if so (a) since what date (b) what is its duration (c) what was the amount of his tender?
2.	Were public tenders called and, if so (a) was public notice given of this call for tenders (b) where was such notice posted (c) for what length of time was it posted?
3.	Were any other tenders submitted?
4.	Is the closing date for such tenders now passed and, if not, what is the closing date?


Mr. Denis:: 1. Yes, for St. Alphonse de Granby R.R. No. 1.
(a)	The contract expired on June 30, 1963 and has been renewed, but the forms are not yet completed.
(b)	The new four-year contract will expire on June 30, 1967.
(c)	The amount of the contract is $1,557.62 per year.
2.	No.
3.	N/A.
4.	N/A.


PUBLIC DEBT
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	What is the total amount, the per capita amount, and the amount per family, of the Canadian public debt?
2.	What is the amount of the interest paid on this debt annually?
3.	What is the total money supply in Canada in relation to the public debt?
[Mr. Gauthier.l
4.	What is Canada's contribution to the international monetary fund?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: 1. Canadian public debt, as at March 31, 1963 (preliminary): unmatured debt, $17,961.8 million; gross liabilities, $24,811.9 million; net debt, $13,937.1 million.
Per capita amount (population as at April, 1963): of unmatured debt, $953.08; of gross liabilities, $1,316.56; of net debt, $739.53.
Amount per family (number of families as at June 1, 1962): of unmatured debt, $4,237.27; of gross liabilities $5,853.24; of net debt, $3,287.83.
2.	Interest paid on debt during 1962-63 (estimated): on unmatured debt, $709.0 million; on gross liabilities, $882.0 million.
3.	Total money supply in Canada in relation to public debt (money supply as at March, 1963); 86 per cent of unmatured debt; 63 per cent of gross liabilities; 111 per cent of net debt.
4.	No country makes a "contribution" to the international monetary fund. Every member country has, however, a "quota" in the fund on which its borrowing privileges and lending obligations are based. Canada's quota is 550 million U.S. dollars.
(Text):


GYPSUMVILLE, MAN., POST OFFICE
Mr. Stefanson: Is It the Intention of the government to build a post office at Gypsumville, Manitoba, this year?


Azellus Denis: No.


U.S. SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS OF CANADIANS AT OXFORD UNIVERSITY
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1963, has the government received any reports of investigations by the federal bureau of investigation of the United States of America or any other so-called United States intelligence agencies, into the activities or politics of any person of Canadian citizenship attending Oxford University at Oxford in the United Kingdom?
2.	If so (a) by whom were the investigations conducted (b) was any protest made by the government of Canada to the government of the United States, and what form did these protests take (c) are any steps being taken to prevent a recurrence of any such activities, and what are the details surrounding any such steps?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.
(Translation):


* JOINT PROGRAMS, QUEBEC
Mr. Valade: 1.	Does the federal government intend to pursue a policy of joint programs in the province of Quebec?
2.	Has the province of Quebec officially asked the federal government to abandon the policy of joint programs?
3.	Has there been an exchange of letters between the two governments on that matter?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: The position of the present government on that matter can be summed up as follows: if some provinces so desire, they should be able, without losing any money, to withdraw from joint programs already established which include regular expenses paid by the federal government. Ottawa will then grant those provinces a compensation equal to expenses incurred by them, by reducing its own direct taxes and increasing equalization payments.
As for the two other questions, I am informed that the answer is negative in both cases.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Frenetie:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of any correspondence, documents or notes exchanged between the president of the privy council and the governments of each of the provinces in connection with the appointment, in the near future, of a royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I should inform the hon. member that no correspondence has been exchanged between the President of the Privy Council and the governments of each of the provinces regarding the appointment, in the near future, of a royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 51-Mr. Langlois:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Agriculture or his assistant and all the representatives of the farm credit corporation in the Ottawa central offices and in the province of Quebec for the period from January 1, 1961, to July 1, 1963.
Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Speaker, in his motion, the hon. member asks for the production of documents exchanged between a minister of the crown and the chairman of a crown corporation. It is a well-established ruie of the house that confidential documents exchanged between a minister and the chairman of a crown corporation are privileged and are not tabled in the house. After discussing the matter with the hon. member, I understand that he is willing to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Langlois:: Mr. Speaker, I actually met the minister and agreed to withdraw the motion in its present form. On the other hand, if I am not satisfied with the replies given to me, I shall put on the order paper a
Motions for Papers
further motion for the production of specific documents.
Motion withdrawn.
(Text):


CIGARETTE SMOKING
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. McBain:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence dated since April 22, 1963, received by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and officials of her department related to the subject of cigarette smoking; and also a copy of all correspondence dated since April 22, 1963, sent out by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and officials of her department covering the same subject.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 58-Mr. Aiken:
That an order of the house do issue for a return for all bills, accounts or other papers showing the date of all telephone calls, including those made through the exchange or by direct dialing between April 22 and June 20, 1963 which passed between any minister of the government to or from his office (or residence, if charged to public expense) and Wood, Gundy & Company Ltd., Toronto, or any executive or officer of said company.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 59-Mr. Pigeon:
That an order of the house do issue for a return for all bills, accounts or other papers showing the date of all telephone calls, including those made through the exchange or by direct dialing between April 22 and June 20, 1963, which passed between the Prime Minister or anyone on his behalf to or from his office (or residence, if charged to public expense) and W. G. Harris of Harris and Partners Ltd., Toronto, or other official or member of said company.
Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be disappointed to learn that there were no such telephone calls, so perhaps this motion could be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have only one remark to make in respect to what the Prime Minister has just said. He probably made phone calls in public phone booths, I do not know.
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, that remark surely was out of order as well as being a rather cheap insinuation.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Order discharged and motion dropped.
2302	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry POWER



PASSAMAQUODDY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether any preliminary discussions were had between the Canadian and American governments or representatives thereof concerning the feasibility of the Passamaquoddy power harnessing project before the details of the same were unveiled yesterday in Washington. If so, when did these discussions take place, and have any feasibility studies been made as to the economic value of the process?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge there were no discussions between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States on the occasion of the Prime Minister's visit there?


John George Diefenbaker: May I also ask this. Was there any communication in this connection between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States on the occasion of the Prime Minister's visit there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this matter came up at all during those discussions, but I would be glad to look into it.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister, and I apologize for not having given him prior notice. There is a report in today's press reports of a threatened blockade of the St. Lawrence seaway by the Canadian maritime union unless there is an immediate halt to the harassment of C.M.U. manned vessels in United States ports. With the immediate threat of further violence in United States ports, can the Prime Minister assure the house that the government is taking immediate appropriate steps to deal with this most urgent and potentially disastrous situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I saw this report in the newspaper and we are looking into it at once, because if any such action were taken it would be of considerable importance.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question in connection with this matter. Has any examination been made of the legal


authorities to see whether the several recommendations made by Mr. Justice Norris in connection with the S.I.U. are constitutionally within the authority of the government of Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the matter is being looked into now. I did discuss the matter with the deputy minister this morning, but I am not at liberty to divulge the result of the discussion. There is a problem which will have to be looked into from a legal standpoint, and until that has been done I am afraid there is nothing more that I can add to the answer.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the serious situation just referred to by the hon. member for Red Deer can the minister say when it is expected this legal opinion will be available, so that action can be taken by the government to meet this catalogue of terrorism which is frightening?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, the answer I can give at the moment is that following the discussion I had it will be looked into at once.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the far reaching implications of the recommendations contained in the report of Mr. Justice T. G. Norris on the disruption of shipping, will the government agree to set aside time early next week for a full scale debate on the findings of the Norris commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: While not underestimating the importance of the matter referred to by my hon. friend, I feel that it would be undesirable to interrupt the debate on budget resolutions scheduled for early next week to permit this particular discussion. Perhaps consideration can be given, indeed consideration will be given, to the introduction later in the week of the estimates of the Department of Labour, which would provide an opportunity for debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister not consider that the possibility of disturbances or dislocations might be offset if there were some clear statement emanating from a debate on this subject?


Lester Bowles Pearson: So far as the government is concerned, it will need a few days to consider the recommendations in this report, which

are very important and very numerous, before the house could expect a clear and definitive statement.
[La ter:]


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Is his department considering taking action with regard to the section of Mr. Justice Norris' report dealing with Harold Banks' annual income, salary and expenses?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be appreciated that matters concerning individual taxpayers cannot be discussed on orders of the day, and that the provisions of the Income Tax Act provide for secrecy.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question, supplementary to the one addressed to the Minister of Justice by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I ask the minister whether he and his officials have had sufficient time to study this report and determine whether they are going to take some action to deal with the findings contained therein.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman asked a similar question yesterday. The answer I gave then was that the report had just come to hand and that we were giving it careful study.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There has been some speculation that the federal government does not have power to deal with some of these very serious violations of freedom, and so on. Is the minister and his department of this opinion?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will probably recall that the Leader of the Opposition asked a similar question earlier and I gave a reply in which I stated, in effect, that this matter was under careful scrutiny.



REQUEST FOR CHEAPER EDITION OF NORRIS REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: As
a pioneer in the 1955 campaign to expose and get Harold Banks out of Canada whose statements have been vindicated fully by the Norris report, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the very general and keen interest in the Norris commission report and schedules and the significant demand for copies, I should like the minister to consider the publication of a paperback, cheap edition of the report and schedules.
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, the report is already paperbacked.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask a supplementary question. When are the schedules to the report to be available to members?


Mr. MacEachen:: I hope they will be available late this week or early next week. It depends on the printing.
(Translation):



HISTORICAL SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, or in his absence to his parliamentary secretary.
Is the minister aware that German mountaineers are making explorations and digging on Perce rock?
Those researches are harmful to the hatching of birds eggs and can contribute to the destruction of this first rate Canadian historical site.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alexandre Cyr: Can the minister take the steps-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alexandre Cyr: -required to prohibit prospection on this rock in order to preserve this historical site and tourist attraction?


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister, I shall take the question as notice.
(Text):



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is short, to the point, and will not transgress your ruling. It is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The minister is aware that a campaign is under way to amend the National Housing Act. Since the amendments now prepared do not include a clause allowing low interest rate N.H.A. loans-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Reynold Rapp: Just wait a minute. Since the amendments now prepared do not include a clause allowing low interest rate N.H.A. loans on student owned and operated residences,

Inquiries of the Ministry will the minister give consideration to the inclusion of such a clause for the benefit of the low income students?


John Richard Garland: I am pleased to tell the hon. member and other hon. members on both sides of the house who may have been in communication with this interested group within the last few days that the subject matter of this question has been under active consideration by the government practically since we assumed office. I can tell him also I am meeting representatives of the campus co-operative group this afternoon after orders of the day. Perhaps I should remind him that there are facilities at the present time under the National Housing Act to provide loans to universities for dormitory accommodation.



PROMOTION OF EXPORT MARKETS FOR TOBACCO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since the Minister of National Health and Welfare, by making statements against the use of tobacco and giving up smoking, has interfered with the consumption of Canadian tobacco, is it the intention of the minister to find foreign markets in communist countries for the exportation of Canadian tobacco?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand I should take up the burden of the minister. This is obviously a question for the order paper.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. What is the present status of the application for Mr. Jack Shapira of Winnipeg for an A.M. and F.M. radio broadcasting licence for Winnipeg, as recommended by the board of broadcast governors?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Nowlan:: Don't plant those again.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that it is not a planted question. The issuance of the licence in question was authorized yesterday.
[Mr. Rapp.)

(Translation):



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY PROPOSED CHANGE IN PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received an official request from the province of Quebec concerning the new lay-out of the trans-Canada highway along Montreal harbour?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did receive last Friday an official request from the provincial authorities concerning the change in the layout of the highway, under the Trans-Canada Highway Act, and in all the plans which were then submitted to us.
Since this is an urgent project, my departmental officials have been asked to examine those plans, and I do believe that we shall be in a position, before the end of July, to reach a decision which will be made known to the house.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A while ago I directed to the Minister of Public Works a question of exactly the same nature concerning the outlay of a second trans-Canada highway which would go around the city of Montreal. At that time, Mr. Speaker, you said that the question should be put on the order paper.
That is why I am surprised to notice that you let the hon. member for St. Henry ask the same question and that you further authorize the minister to give an answer.
(Text):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the answer he gave to my question yesterday, regarding retired civil servants, must have been based on a misunderstanding, I wonder if I might ask it again. In view of assurances earlier this session that consideration would be given to the position of retired civil servants whose pensions are inadequate, could the minister say whether we might anticipate at this session an amendment of the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act under which this sort of thing could be done?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do apologize to the hon. member for the confusion yesterday. In answer to his question, all I can say is that the matter is still under study.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on May 23 and again on June 14 the hon. member for Brandon-Souris inquired about the appointment of the secretary general of the resources minister's council. On those occasions the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources indicated that he would inform the house at the time the appointment was made.
In my minister's absence today I can tell the hon. member, and other hon. members of the house, that the executive committee of the council has unanimously agreed to the appointment of Mr. Daniel Wermenlinger. The chairman of the Canadian resources minister's council, Hon. Rene Levesque, will be releasing a communique today concerning this appointment.
Mr. Wermenlinger was chosen from a group of 60 applicants from all parts of Canada following public advertisement. For his duties as secretary general to the Canadian resources minister's council Mr. Wermenlinger brings an excellent background as a consulting engineer and teacher. He is age 38 and is a McGill University graduate in engineering. He has had employment in the electric power industry in Quebec, and has been professor of the development of electric power at Laval University. He actively participated in the resources for tomorrow conference of 1961 and was a delegate in May, 1962 at the "conference internationale des grands reseaux electriques" in Paris.
The new secretary general will take up his duties commencing August 15, and the office of the permanent secretariat will be located in Montreal. His general duties, under the direction of the chairman of the resources minister's council will be to undertake studies relating to the conservation and utilization of natural resources in Canada.
Hon. members will recall that the resources minister's council developed from experience at the resources for tomorrow conference in 1961. The federal government and all 10 provincial governments are represented by ministers responsible for the management of renewable resources. The council provides a
Inquiries of the Ministry forum for the discussion of questions of interest to the several governments, and for the co-ordination of resource management objectives and policies.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his information, and while he held the floor I wanted to ask him another question concerning the university training program for the Northwest Territories. This question was asked last Friday, and I think an answer would be desirable before the council prorogues its present session.


John Napier Turner: My minister will be in town shortly, and I think he would prefer to answer that question himself.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. In view of a report I heard over the radio yesterday, is it a fact that the Canadian government is negotiating with England to have our submarines constructed in that country?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there have been studies undertaken with a view to ascertaining where, in the event that they are necessary, submarines for the Royal Canadian Navy can be most effectively produced. As yet no decision has been taken.


Raymond Langlois: Does the minister not think that, before the time when it becomes necessary to have them, it would be a good thing to arrange to have them constructed here in Canada, considering the unemployment situation?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonlon-Slraihcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence and in the absence of the associate minister perhaps it could be taken as notice. I understand that when the defence committee travelled to Colorado Springs there were many

Inquiries of the Ministry
empty seats on the air force plane which took them there. Would the minister permit members of the press gallery to occupy those spare seats on future trips of this committee, so the press will be able to keep the Canadian people informed of the sittings of this frustrated committee and of the information that it is not getting?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO INVITATIONS TO YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises from the recent enthusiasm of his government about consulting with the provinces before proceeding with legislative matters. Can the Prime Minister assure me that in all such federal-provincial conferences the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories will be invited to participate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the correct and normal constitutional practice will be followed in this matter.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: As a supplementary question, have the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories been invited to attend the dominion-provincial conference on July 26 and 27, when the municipal loan fund and Canadian pension plan will be discussed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. My question is caused by two related incidents. Last week we passed the Atlantic development board bill. Yesterday the Atlantic premiers announced that they wanted a clarification of it. I just wondered whether the minister could indicate to us what steps he is taking to provide such clarification, and could he give some explanation as to why this seems to be necessary so very quickly?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In answering the hon. gentleman's question, Mr. Speaker, I will have to apologize to my colleague the Solicitor General for informing him in public of what I would like to have consulted him about in private. I had a call
fMr. Nugent.]
this morning from the premier of New Brunswick, speaking for the premiers of the four Atlantic provinces, asking to have a meeting with the four federal ministers from the Atlantic provinces next Thursday. A meeting is being arranged for five o'clock next Thursday afternoon so that we can discuss the most effective co-operation in carrying out the aims of the board; that is making the assumption that the amendments to the act will have the same happy fate in another place that they have already had here.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, at the request of some of our members. Have there been any recent representations from the state of Israel for the drafting of an extradition treaty between that state and Canada?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into the matter. I do not believe there have been, but I would like to answer the question later.


NUCLEAR TEST BAN
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the Canadian government being kept informed of the developments at the nuclear test ban conference in Moscow? Are there any up to date reports the minister can give to the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is following these discussions with close interest. It is being kept informed as to the nature of the discussions. There is every reason to believe that progress is being made in the discussions. When they are finalized I hope to be able to say something further.


INQUIRY AS TO $3 PRICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. With the new crop year starting on August 1, when can the farmers of western Canada expect an announcement from the government in regard to the $3 per bushel for the initial 300 bushel quota of wheat?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the government is going to be in a position to announce the level of initial prices within a few days.


FINANCE
[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 on an answer given on July 15, as reported in Hansard at page 2173, to some questions of mine regarding the minister's special budget assistants. How was it that Mr. Conway was appointed, or commenced work, on April 21, the day before the government itself was sworn in?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that matter and give the hon. member an answer when I have the information.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, July 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lamontagne for the second reading of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of an economic council of Canada.
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I now take up my interrupted speech of last Monday, if you can call five minutes fill-in the beginning of a speech. Since that time I have been able to read with greater care the interesting discourse of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) when he introduced this measure into the house. I am now more astonished than I was before I made that careful examination that the minister is prepared to stand in his place in this house and describe this strange, anaemic piece of legislation as the government's program for establishing planning in this country. Moreover, I am astonished that a gentleman of his reputed economic knowledge is prepared to stand in the chamber and tell us that this bill is going to be the basis of what is known as indicative planning. I do not for one moment imagine that the minister is not well aware of most of the circumstances surrounding the particular national planning to which the term indicative planning was first applied. I refer to the economy of France. I assume he must know what went on there; he must know what the basis of French planning is, and I am 28902-5-147
Economic Council of Canada astonished that he would tell us that his government's program is designed to introduce indicative planning into Canada.
Just in case he has not looked recently at the facts regarding the French commissariat du plan, I would like to put on the record some of the circumstances under which French planning was instituted. In the first place, it was instituted on a very widespread foundation of nationalization; all the coal mining industry, all gas and electricity, all insurance companies, all savings banks and similar savings institutions were nationalized. Specific industries, such as the Gnome-Rhone, Lorraine and Renault aviation engine factories, the Renault automobile factory and, of course, the railways have been nationalized for many years in France. In addition to that there are credit controls in operation in France, controls which I am sure this government has not in mind at all. Medium term loans must be rediscounted at the bank of France, which must consult the commissariat du plan for loans over one million francs. The Credit National, which is the main source of long-term investment funds, must consult the commissariat on all loans over two and a half million francs. In addition to that there are in effect in France quite a wide range of price controls over steel, aluminum, fuel and power, chemicals and motor cars. On top of that Mr. Speaker, there has been a wide measure of public investment in private industry, a sample of which is, of course, the steel industry, 30 per cent of the internal debt of which is held by the public authority. So we see, Mr. Speaker, that in the only instance of general indicative planning, the planning under which the term was first applied, the indicative finger is involved directly in a great many economic pies. As Mr. Pierre Masse, the commissaire general du plan, had to say at a meeting in London:
Directly or indirectly the state controls or is always the main driving influence behind one half of total investment in France.
I mention this, Mr. Speaker, to point out that the use of the term "indicative planning" for the incoherent measures proposed by this government is really grossly misleading.
I would then turn to the make-up of the commissariat du plan in France, and I am sure that if Mr. Pierre Masse, the commissaire general, were to be presented with this bill which is before the house as a sample of indicative planning, Mr. Masse would probably go into hysterics. The commission in France is composed of approximately 50 experts of various sorts. Not merely economists, agronomists and sociologists, but university people and all manner

Economic Council of Canada of people are employed on a full time basis. Even more important than that, as one of the key methods by which French indicative planning is made successful there are established under the plan a large number of commissions made up of those who are actually in control of or responsible for the operation of various sectors of the French economy. Mr. Masse says that if the real forces of the country have been associated with making the plan, they are more likely to stand together in action.
I have no knowledge, of course, of who the 25 ordinary members of this economic council are to be, but I am sure of this, that they are not going to be people such as those who are called in in France to help in the construction of a plan, the people who are actively engaged in the operation of the French economy. We shall have, I presume, someone who purports to represent organized labour, someone who purports to represent the consumers, someone who purports to represent the employers and manufacturers associations. But it will not be the people who are engaged in the actual operation of the economy. Because if it were, Mr. Speaker, you would require many more than 25. You would require a similar set-up to that which they have in France, where you have up to 30 or 40 separate commissions, which are, in effect, working parties composed of government officials, industrialists, financiers, manufacturers, people who are engaged in the operations of the economy.
Therefore I suggest that this bill, when it is presented to us as the means by which planning is to be established in Canada in the first place, is nothing but a hoax; and in particular, when it is suggested to us that on the basis of this bill we can have something which could rightly be termed indicative planning then to my mind this is grossly misleading. Nowhere at all in the bill and nowhere at all in the speech of the President of the Privy Council is there any suggestion whatever of actually setting up a planning agency. The French indicative planning is dependant upon an actual planning agency, a planning agency which, as I say, draws into its ambit various other sections of the community in active working parties to draft the plan, and the plan itself is, of course, written under the auspices of the minister of finance.
Admittedly, in Canada we have two problems facing us which do not face France, or indeed any other nation in the world where planning has taken place. One of these is the very large measure of foreign ownership of our resources and our industries. The other is the federal structure of our country. These two problems are to my mind closely linked;

in fact, one can hardly be dealt with without the other. Not too long ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) attempted in a most praiseworthy manner to deal with the first of these problems by bringing in an ill-starred takeover tax-not a very practical way of approaching this problem, but we can at least give him credit for making the attempt. But even if he had been successful this would not have coped with the continuing situation in Canada; it would merely have applied a brake to any further developments along this line. If the problem is to be coped with-and many seem to think it does not have to be coped with-it can only be done by replacing foreign owners by Canadian owners. However, here we run into two other problems. One is the unwillingness of the present owners to sell, and the other is the fact that if they were willing and the purchasers were private Canadian citizens, there would be no guarantee that the Canadian purchasers would not at a later date dispose of their property to foreign purchasers.
The only other manner of replacing foreign ownership by Canadian ownership is by replacing foreign owners by a public authority in Canada. Here we run into the problem of our constitution in Canada, with the provincial legislatures having control over property and civil rights. However, I think this problem is perhaps not insoluble if we had a government really prepared to do something about indicative planning and really prepared to cope with this problem of foreign ownership. But first of all we have to make up our minds about the answer to this question, which is: Do we really consider foreign ownership to be a detriment to the Canadian nation? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because I have found to my dismay that there are many people, some even in this chamber, who seem to regard the foreign ownership of our resources and our industry, with its inevitable result of absorption into the neighbouring republic, with a certain amount of equanimity. In this party we are convinced that foreign ownership is detrimental to our country, specifically in the context of the bill now before us.
This bill purports to be the foundation stone for indicative planning. It is impossible to carry out anything in the nature of indicative planning in the real sense of the word while this condition of extensive foreign ownership remains. Mr. Masse's comment on the necessity of drawing into the building of the plan all the real forces within the country indicates what our problem is here. What are the real forces of this country-the forces of economic power? They are not, in the main, Canadian forces. When we have to deal with these forces we have to

deal with people or institutions whose concern is not the Canadian nation or the Canadian economy, except in so far as these are the source of immediate profit or addenda to a foreign economy. So I suggest that if the government is serious about embarking on a program of indicative planning it will have to deal with this question of foreign ownership and, in doing so, deal with the situation created by the Canadian constitution.
There have been references in the press and elsewhere to the difficulties the government is encountering in connection with the Canadian constitution at the present time as well as the pressures which are being applied by the provincial governments, in particular with regard to certain economic matters, all of which have to be considered in relation to anything we could call economic planning. We hear, for instance, that the premier of Quebec is much opposed to the government's plan for a portable pension. In fact, there have been reports in the press to this effect. Of course, the premier's fundamental economic reason for opposing it-and it is a most respectable reason-is that he sees in the pension plan a means of accumulating a volume of investment capital which could be used to expand the economy of his province. I suspect Mr. Lesage has discovered something which I think I have discovered. We will have to wait until tomorrow, I suppose, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) makes a statement in this house before we can confirm this; but I have a suspicion that I have discovered the truth, namely, that the portable pension plan is not going to result in any pooling of the savings of the Canadian public, but that instead it is likely to provide a happy hunting ground for the insurance companies and a continuation of the means by which corporations who arrange their own pension plans avoid a large measure of corporation taxes.
I hope I am wrong. If I am, there may still be some way of instituting indicative planning in Canada within the confines of confederation. It may be we shall find we are experiencing much the same results as Sweden, a country which has some interesting lessons to offer us if we were not too timid to accept them. In the London Economist of March 20, there was an article by a Swedish financial correspondent entitled "Enter the New Leviathan". This article describes an almost revolutionary transformation which has taken place in the monetary and credit field in Sweden over the last 12 months because of the operation of the Swedish social insurance plan and the coming into 28902-5-1471
Economic Council of Canada effect of the national supplementary pension fund. This has had far reaching consequences for the capital market, and I should like to quote briefly from this article:
Although the fund did not start its operations until 1960 and will go on growing for many years to come, it has already become the prime source of long-term finance. Last year the increase in its investments amounted to 1,300 million kronor, and this year it will fall not far short of 2,000 million.
It is estimated, on fairly conservative assumptions, that the fund will have increased its resources to 25,000 million kronor by the end of this decade. This would correspond to about a quarter of all institutional credits; and its share of the market would then be the same as that of the commercial banks is today. Its annual investments would in 1970 be between 5,000 and 6,000 million kronor, equal to the total net amount of borrowings from all institutions in 1962.
I suggest that here lies a clue to dealing with two problems which in my opinion stand as an immovable barrier to any effective indicative planning in Canada, namely the existence of such an enormous degree of foreign ownership and, secondly, the difficulty of bringing the provincial authorities into any concerted national plan. I would suggest the experience in Sweden indicates the way in which the government, if it really wishes to embark on a program of planning, should be moving at this time. It should be prepared to use this portable pension plan as a means of building up a vast pool of the savings of the Canadian people and it should be prepared to make arrangements with the provincial governments so as to make available the capital they require for their own investment programs. I suggest that had this government possessed the courage and the honesty to make known a real proposal for indicative planning, including a project of that sort and made its intentions known to the provincial governments there would have been far less scurrying about in the backrooms of this house in the past few weeks as the administration sought to avoid a showdown with recalcitrant provinces. The governments of the provinces would realize they were expected to become part of a national plan and their justifiable demands for an increased share of investment capital would be met.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this organization entitled the economic council of Canada -I do not know what else you could call it- is merely going to be another of those farcical organizations we have had so often in the past. At best it will be a fact-finding statistic-collecting organization with no authority to present, institute or formulate any real economic plans. Anyway, there is no intention of having it do anything of that sort. As the foundation stone for economic planning in Canada it is as ludicrous and as inadequate

Economic Council of Canada as the proposal which was made by the previous government and which was so strenuously derided by the gentlemen now occupying the treasury benches.
(Translation):


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere du Loup-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the economic council, we may wonder, on the local, provincial or federal level whether we need such an instrument to help promote our economy.
To illustrate my views on our development and on regional issues, I should like to quote the following:
In such areas which, to a large extent, have been kept out of the economic advance, there is a recession not only in comparison to the remainder of the country, but sometimes even in the absolute sense. From year to year, life becomes more difficult there: The competition of powerful industries and prosperous farming in other areas gradually ruins the remaining industrial establishments, as well as farming and business. A spirit of revolt, the very opposite of the spirit of enterprise which alone could improve conditions, takes shape and develops. Slowly, and mostly unwillingly, the people leave those areas without a future to seek better opportunities in more dynamic parts where they sometimes create serious problems with regard to accommodation and employment.
It was on purpose, Mr. Speaker, that I did not indicate the source of that quotation at the start. Some people might think that it describes some of our underdeveloped areas. Well, it is an excerpt from the International Review of Social Sciences, UNESCO, No. 3, 1959, dealing with certain French areas which are faced with the problem of industrial centralization, and where the necessary steps were to be taken to give them a new start.
Now, that is about the same problem which is found in the lower St. Lawrence and many other of our districts. Such a situation may well cause some anxiety.
On the one hand, we see an increasingly larger part of our people getting used to put their trust in a welfare state, and, on the other hand, we have a group of citizens who are alarmed by the situation and try, generously, to give a new buoyancy to our economy and to fight that centralizing trend.
We are greatly concerned, because if we come to rely solely on the welfare state, stifling any initiative, growing accustomed to sponge on the state, since there is no other solution and that on the other hand, those who are struggling to give new impetus to the economy feel that they are ill-supported and ignored, it may happen that they will grow weary and that they will also follow the trend.
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1
In our area, we did not merely bemoan our lot nor blame our neighbours for our troubles. We deemed it necessary to form a group and to set up a district council of economic planning. It is the municipalities and the county councils which took the initiative, since industry lacked the required vitality to fill in the gaps. It was therefore necessary to rely on those whose duty it is to promote the public weal and to see to it that, instead of being constantly at strife, because everyone wants to have a finger in the pie, we should work together in good understanding in order to achieve our common aims in our given community. In this manner, a normal and constant development of our areas would be possible, so that instead of relying entirely on state assistance, we could proudly enable our people to earn a living.
This is an example of a community which may not be as privileged as others, but which accepted its responsibilities and preferred to unite rather than remain divided, and hired experts to conduct studies. We started by making a demographic survey, because it is the best way to know exactly what is our human potential, a most important point. We had a survey made on transportation by Mr. Pierre Camu, vice president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, and also an investigation in the field of agriculture and of forestry, in order to know what our resources are and to be in a position afterwards to plan properly the development of our areas.
You have, on a higher level, the example of the province of Quebec which also felt the need to put its affairs in order. Our province provided for the establishment of a council of economic planning which could operate in a truly democratic fashion, without undue state control, but thanks to an indicative direction and planning. This was achieved through regular legislation providing financial incentives to those who wished to take part in the plan, thus permitting a more orderly development of Quebec's resources.
We feel that if that is a must on the local and provincial scenes, it is just as necessary at the federal level.
Who would build a house with foundations, walls and partitions without adding a roof?
We are a nation and as such we have obligations to fulfil and a part to play. Some will say, like the hon. member who spoke before me, that we will get nowhere unless

we resort to imperative planning. Others will claim that it would be better to leave things as they are, that everything will come out all right in the end. Others yet will raise various federal-provincial problems.
In my opinion, everyone must do his share in his own field. The fact remains however that the federal government has a great part to play in the field of transport, communications, public works, etc. Our efforts should be co-ordinated to give a boost to our economy.
Every one will agree also that we must try to co-ordinate the efforts of the regional and provincial economic boards so that there is no conflict between their different activities, which is the only way our country can grow in a normal and orderly fashion.
Of course, we must not exaggerate the importance of the economic council, since that is not the only solution. Several other measures dealing with the serious problem of unemployment and underdeveloped areas are now on the order paper. This piece of legislation is just one aspect of the over-all plan to facilitate the normal economic growth of our country.
I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke for all our hon. friends opposite when he said one should take care not to rush into a marriage one might have cause to regret till the end of one's days. That, it seems to me, is typical of the attitude our hon. friends take when they are faced with the problems now before us, that is to say they have a way of flirting with problems without ever espousing them. I would even go as far as to say that is just like a young man who would be courting a girl and telling her in advance he has absolutely no intention of marrying her and who would still deny her the right to go out with another boy. Well, perhaps such a relationship can accidentally end up by creating something, but it is surely a sterile and irresponsible way of dealing with the problem at hand.
We on this side of the house want to espouse the cause of the unemployed, the cause of the depressed areas, and we know, because such is the law of nature, that childbirth cannot always be painless. Be that as it may, let us see to it that projects are carried out which will make the development of our country possible, even if, at first, that might hurt the feelings of some of our neighbours.
Everybody will agree that we must allow all people who are interested in the economic
Economic Council of Canada life of our country to group themselves, to unite, to make surveys and also to put forward programs which may help us to deal with the serious situation we are in.
To be constantly bringing up the problem of federal-provincial relations as an objection is to use a two-edged sword. Naturally, we can never care enough for the respect of provincial rights and especially those of the province of Quebec. Of course, we must allow that province to develop normally in the respect of all its rights.
On the one hand, feelings are aroused by the question of federal-provincial relations in the province of Quebec. On the other hand, the other provinces are led to believe that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is yielding to the pressure of the province of Quebec. But we must realize that we live in a pluralistic state, which means that there is a need for continuous negotiations. On that point, I should like to refer to the same book where we find, on pages 362 and 363, that in a pluralistic state:
-various other requirements must be fulfilled so that the necessary spirit of compromise and conciliation can be maintained. Population segments entirely deprived of power must not be numerous; the access to political life must be fairly easy; the various groups must be of a fairly equal strength, so that none of them can readily impose its will on others; finally, negotiations must be pursued unremittingly, with obstinacy and ability. We have seen that the maintenance of an order, whichever it is, always calls for a certain amount of energy; the maintenance of a pluralistic order entails enormous efforts in negotiations. Politicians being the true negotiators in pluralistic systems, every organization must have them at its disposal.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the man who succeeded at a critical and extremely difficult time, on the international level, in negotiating for the establishment of world peace, will succeed, on the national level, in negotiating the establishment of Canadian unity, with due respect for the individual rights and the interests of every Canadian.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is really anxious to see this economic council give good results, I am sure he will admit that it is imperative that this council, and consequently the federal government, secure full co-operation on the part of the provinces.
For example, paragraph (j) on page 4 of the bill states the following:
to seek full and regular consultation with appropriate agencies of the governments of the several provinces.

Economic Council of Canada
And, on page 4, paragraph (iv) of section 11 states:
the use of training programs at all levels of industry, and the use of retraining programs to meet changing manpower requirements.
I would ask the minister the following question: if he really wishes this legislation to work efficiently and to help promote the economic development of this country, why does the government obstinately refuse to submit it to the provinces at the federal-provincial conference which is to be held in a few days? I am asking this question with the utmost sincerity, since the federal government needs the provinces' and the municipalities' full co-operation if it wants this legislation to be fruitful. I should be very grateful if he would take a minute or two to give us a direct answer, and thus give assurance to the house that he will make all the necessary efforts so that the Canadian economy will derive all that it possibly can from this bill. I would be very happy if the minister could take a minute or two to give me an immediate answer to that question. What are the actual objections?
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this session, we have witnessed a complete invasion of the provincial field. Besides, some economists remind me of certain psychiatrists: the patient's mental and physical health often gets worse after the latter has been committed to their care. We do not wish to see that happen with the healthy autonomy of our provinces. We want the provinces to have complete jurisdiction in the labour-management field, and in all matters which come under provincial authority, such as natural resources, hydroelectric power, as well as numerous other fields, including agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, we are anxious to be told on what grounds the government obstinately refuses to consult the provinces.
Before promulgating ARDA, we consulted ail the provincial governments, and only with their full consent, did we enforce the act.
I feel that the bill providing for the establishment of an economic council of Canada should come under the Department of Trade and Commerce, or the Department of Industry. Whom does the government intend to appoint as chairman, directors and members of that council? Does it plan on selecting a fair percentage of representatives of our agricultural elite, of our labour force and of our managerial class?
Mr. Speaker, let us assume that one of our provinces, because it was not consulted, or

because it is jealous of its autonomy, chooses not to co-operate with the central government, or with the economic council. What then would be the latter's attitude? Would its action not be impaired, would our economy not be endangered?
I wonder also whether the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act-or ARDA-should not be under the jurisdiction of the projected economic council. ARDA has been operating in numerous countries, such as France for instance, and it has helped solve many problems, as it bears upon three technical fields: (a) the use and improvement of marginal lands; (b) rural development and industrial expansion; (c) land amelioration and soil conservation, water conservation and production.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is wandering quite a bit from the measure now before us. I can understand that, while discussing the establishment of ARDA, he may possibly want to use this subject as an example, but I would suggest that he limit his remarks along this line and return as soon as possible to the matter under consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I think that ARDA can, from the economic point of view, assist greatly in relieving numerous problems which exist now in agriculture, more particularly in underdeveloped areas of this country. In my opinion, if this economic council of Canada really wishes to do efficient work, it must know the policy embodied in ARDA and work in close contact with it.
Mr. Speaker, I also believe that there is another serious problem, that is unemployment. Permit me to say incidentally that, according to the last statistics, unemployment is higher now than it was last year on this date. I am of the opinion that it is absolutely necessary to have the largest proportion of our raw materials processed in Canada.
As far as raw materials are concerned, grains as well as metals can be considered as raw materials.
It is a fine thing to sell our western grain abroad, but if that grain were processed in the east, the income of our farmers would be higher. In fact, this is why the Conservative government had prepared during the last session a piece of legislation providing for payment by the federal government for the transportation of grain from Fort William to eastern Canada. The same legislation provided for payment by the federal government

of the building cost of warehouses built along the waterways of eastern Canada in addition to the warehousing costs of cereals.
Mr. Speaker, the minister's speech was most interesting. I readily recognize it, as I often do not share his opinions, but I must admit that this speech was substantial.
He did a good job and I believe he is probably sincere when he advocates certain measures, regardless of the provinces' interest.
It is easier to work out a policy in some countries as, for example, in France, where you have a unified government, than in a country like ours, with a federal government and ten provincial governments. I admit that it is often difficult in our country to carry out an economic program. However, as long as the constitution has not been revised and amendments have not been brought to bear with the consent of all parties, in my opinion the minister must submit such a program to the provincial authorities to get efficient cooperation and work towards the national interest.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, the few remarks I wanted to make and I would be pleased if the minister could give us the reasons why he does not want to submit this bill to the provinces with a view to securing their full co-operation.
(Text):


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, this bill is part of a much advertised Liberal program of legislation, but in form it is merely a rewrite, with one addition, of two bills which were brought in by the former government. I refer particularly to Bill C-87, which was introduced on November 28, 1962, to establish a national economic development board, and to an act of parliament, the National Productivity Council Act, chapter 4 of the 1960-61 statutes. In addition to the combination of these bills there is a very greatly enlarged objective clause, which I believe makes the whole intent of this bill much different.
At this stage of our proceedings we cannot study the bill clause by clause. I do not wish to do so, but there are three particular parts of the bill that ought to be discussed, as each derives from a source which ought to be mentioned. There is first Bill C-87, and if we look at the bill before us we find that clauses 1 to 8 are identical with the clauses in Bill C-87, with the exception that the name has been changed from the national economic development board to the economic council of Canada, and the word "board" where it appears has been changed to "council". The
Economic Council of Canada only difference I can find is that the term of office of the chairman is to be seven years instead of ten years. Therefore we have no objection to this part of the bill and we think these clauses are worthy of support.
Clause 11 of the bill is lifted right out of the National Productivity Council Act. The words are identical and this portion of the bill is merely a reprint of the main and essential part of that act.
Clauses 12 to 20 are substantially the same as clauses 13 to 21 in the old bill, No. C-87. This leaves only clauses 9 and 10, which stipulate the duties of the council, where the difference in direction appears. The present bill looks something like the old bill, but its implications are much broader, and it is our view that it gives the council a stronger hold, almost an octopus hold, on the business and economic sectors of Canadian life.
When we come to these clauses on committee stage we will want to have some assurance from the minister as to the extent to which he intends to use these very broad powers that are given to the council. We will also want to make sure that the centralization of powers in Canada is not extended unduly, and in fact is not extended any more than is necessary for an over-all look at the Canadian economy.
What we fear most is not the actual wording of the bill but the theories behind it, which were expressed by the President of the Privy Council when he introduced it. We feel that they tend to show us that his intentions are to make this council one which will have a very strong bearing on business in Canada. We believe that business in Canada today appreciates assistance; they appreciate assistance in changing from one product to another; they appreciate assistance in improving their product and in marketing it. For these things they do look to government, and they were encouraged to look to government by the progressive legislation that our party brought before parliament. To this extent we are in sympathy with the purposes of the bill.
We think that any assistance whatever that can be given to Canadian businessmen, particularly in the export field, is well given. It is not within the competence of many Candian businesses, particularly the smaller ones, to go out into foreign fields and look for markets; they have to rely upon the services of such bodies as the Department of Trade and Commerce and the new council which will be established. To that extent we are not objecting to, and in fact we approve of the principle of this bill.
I think we should examine the theory and philosophy behind the changes that were

Economic Council of Canada put into this bill which amends the bill concerning the national economic development board. This bill, along with other government legislation, has been put forward as part of a program. We are told that this bill goes hand in hand with the department of industry bill, the capital development corporation bill, the Atlantic provinces development board bill and the municipal loans bill, to indicate a program of economic development to assist in relieving unemployment, and so forth. Mr. Speaker, we do not think this objective has been accomplished. We think that the program as a program was hastily thrown together; that it is composed of bits and pieces picked up here and there in order to present to the country quickly something that looks like a program. We think this bill particularly was merely derived from two or three sources, put together and announced as one of the great, new items of legislation of this government. We do not think this has in fact been accomplished.
We recall that when the department of industry bill was before the house the minister could not say, for example, how many people would be employed in the department or how much it would cost. He said this would depend pretty much upon the circumstances at the time. It was an indication of an intention to do something, without any well laid plans. I am not going to dwell on that matter now, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members opposite will say I am rehashing the old bill, and I do not wish to do that; I merely wish to deal with this particular bill. This was one aspect that bothered opposition members and on which a number of questions were asked; that is, what is this department doing; how many people are going to be employed, and how much is it going to cost? These questions could not be answered by the minister and therefore the house was left pretty much in the dark as to the intention of this bill.
We believe the same thing applies to the municipal loans legislation. I do not want to beat anybody over the head with the problem with which the government is faced in this regard, except to say that here again we think it is not part of a well planned and well laid out program. We think it was done hastily as part of a program to be laid before this parliament within 60 days in order that the government could fulfil their election promise. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we think the municipal loans bill, as part of this program, while it was well intentioned and may in the end work out properly, was not planned and put forward in the way it should have been.

The capital development corporation bill is not before us; it has not yet been discussed. However, I think it is perhaps in the same category. After reading the resolution we think this measure has not been planned and there is no over-all plan which will give assistance to the new economic council for Canada. The same remarks apply to the Atlantic provinces development board bill. There again it merely contains slight changes. A maximum amount of money was included as a provision of the bill, but we did not get any clear picture about who was going to be on this board or how it could be improved under the new legislation as compared with the old. We recall that the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) particularly asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) what plans he might have to assist in the development of the Atlantic area. The minister was unable at that time to say there was any plan, that he had anything to put forward. He just said, "We will wait and see what the board produces".
These are all rough sketches of the legislation we had before, Mr. Speaker. I am merely trying to prove the point that this economic council is not a great, new piece of Liberal legislation; it is merely a throwing together of two Conservative bills, one of which was passed and one of which was never passed, with expanded objects to which I shall refer in a few minutes. I mentioned that this bill eliminates the national productivity council and takes the heart, the main sections, out of the previous bill, puts them into this bill and sets up one council. There is only one thing in commendation that I wish to say to the government. I am glad they did not create two new councils. It is quite obvious that they intend to change the personnel of the productivity council, because when the bill before us is passed, the productivity council will come to an end; therefore the appointments which have been made will also come to an end and the government will be able to go ahead and make new appointments. I think possibly this is one of the main features of this new bill, as it was with the Atlantic provinces development board bill; that is, it is not in order to make any progress or because there is anything in either of these bills which could not have been done under the old bills; it is merely a case of passing a bill in order that the personnel may be changed and the government may put its own nominees on these boards. I think that is not sufficient reason for the government making a great fuss about the program they are putting forward. This bill will eliminate the productivity council and its members, as I have said. It is also an enlargement of the progressive

legislation already brought in. I believe the worst feature of the bill is that the central organization, the council, has been given such broad powers under this new bill that it can more than assist and advise, which the old bill only sought to do; it can now give some direction. This is the thin edge of the wedge to which we take objection. When we come to the clauses I intend to ask the minister if he will indicate clearly to the house how far he proposes to make use of clauses 9 and 10 and how far he expects that the council will be provided with funds and direction along these lines.
I hope it will not be said of me that I am afraid of progressive ideas. I am sure that one matter that is thrown back and forth from one corner of the house to another is that certain parties are afraid of progressive ideas and will vote against them. We are not afraid of progressive ideas; but if progressive legislation means more direction in Canada's economy, if progressive legislation means more centralizing of Canada's economy in one body in the federal field, then I do not believe this is progressive. I believe it is rather the opposite, that it is regressive; because in our British North America Act and most of our legislation we keep fighting against this tendency to have everything in this great country run from a central point. I hope that that is not the intention behind this bill.
I believe that at the moment what Canadian business wants most is to be left alone. I think that if it can be given some help to secure better products and better markets it will be pleased. But I do not think that it will welcome interference or direction. In the explanation of the bill which the minister gave us when introducing it, my definite impression is that he intended to make use of the bill to give direction. Certain statements and writings of his were read into the record to indicate his feeling that Canadian business could not look after itself, and that Canadian business had to be directed in some fashion in order to get the economy rolling. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if this is in fact what is intended it will not have that effect. Business is interfered with constantly, it seems, by every piece of legislation which is introduced. We all know that a good deal of the business personnel now engaged in each section of the Canadian economy spend a lot of their time answering government questionnaires and requests, complying with regulations, paying taxes and filing returns. This is so particularly with small businesses. I have received all sorts of complaints about organizations such as the dominion bureau of statistics, which is authorized to send out questionnaires to small businesses, and which can force the small businesses to answer these questionnaires. In the 28902-5-148
Economic Council of Canada case of a one-man business where the wife probably does the books, there just is not time to complete this sort of questionnaire. In the case of corporations, they must file tax returns and so forth, and fill in forms which emanate not only from the central government but also from the provincial and municipal governments. I think it is a common complaint among businesses large and small that government interference, government returns of one kind or another and government supervision is stifling the actual objective of these companies, which is to produce some product and put it on the market to sell. I saw a newspaper article recently which indicated that the percentage of people employed in office work is now increasing and the percentage of those employed in production decreasing. This is brought about to a large extent by the factors I have just mentioned, and government intervention in all these matters has caused a great deal of difficulty to small businesses.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that these theories of social and economic advances must be approached with caution. Last year I felt that the bill to establish the national economic development board went as far as it should have gone in the direction indicated by this new bill. Perhaps this new bill has gone too far, in that its direction is more intensified toward control of private business. We have to approach the matter with caution. We must not bring new ideas and specialized personnel to the point where they are devoting their efforts to non-productive objectives. I hope that the minister when he replies on second reading, or when we get to the committee stage, which we hope to do this afternoon, can assure us that this type of legislation and the work of this council will be approached in a cautious manner and that there will not be forced upon Canadian business another series of interferences by way of government forms and returns, and so forth, without an effective result being produced as far as business is concerned. If that assurance is given I see no reason why we should not support the bill.
Progressive legislation can be effective and useful if it is taken with caution. I do not want to mention any other matters, but matters have come before this house in recent weeks which a lot of us feel were brought about hastily and without proper thought. What we fear with regard to this bill is that in order to make a great impression on business and on the people the government will rush into interference with business in Canada in order to improve the employment situation and increase production and exports. Often if you rush into these things without proper groundwork being laid the effect is the absolute opposite of what was intended.

Economic Council of Canada We do not get the results intended by legislation already on our statute books, nor do we get the result intended by new legislation.
May I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the former bill on the economic development board was a satisfactory step. As I have stated, there is only one objectionable feature in the new bill, and that is in clauses 9 and 10. In the old bill the clauses were very limited and were prescribed with caution. The wording was carefully considered to the point where the council could not misuse its powers of direction. I am afraid that the same caution has not been used in the drafting of this present bill, but if we have the necessary assurances from the minister we will be satisfied to support the principle of the bill, with some hesitation as to the government's intention.
(Translation):


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the statement made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) according to which the purpose of the economic council of Canada is to establish planning in our country. He also made a point of being explicit about the sort of planning he had in mind. In fact, the President of the Privy Council is an expert on planning fundamentals. When I see him, I am reminded of our great Quebec socialists. That is why we are always somewhat leery. Quebec is against all forms of socialism and the President of the Privy Council should know it since he has suffered two bitter defeats in his own city because of his ideas on centralization; he even had to go into exile in an English speaking riding.
When the President of the Privy Council uses the expression "indicative planning", I am yet confident. It even seems that he is trying to convince himself by repeating in his bill the words "assess, recommend, study, reexamine, analyse, encourage, initiate research," etc.
But I would advise him to be careful at all times on the brink of dangers he seems anxious not to reveal to the people. In fact, the government would have shown more respect for democracy if they had had two members appointed by each province and three by the federal government. Such a membership would be acceptable to all provinces and to all parties in the house. Thus they would have set up a national council representing all ten provinces.
So the objective of the economic council will be to study that grand system of supply and demand, resulting in all the various unpredictable up and down cycles, but


having a real cause nevertheless. It is that cause I want to discuss before the house.
When I see the President of the Privy Council consider only two parts of our economic system, I am always surprised to find that he does not go farther along those lines and does not use the third part of our present economic system. Is it a lack of agility? Perhaps he keeps that last ball up his sleeve, to keep us guessing. That is his secret. Nevertheless, that omission should not be made on purpose, let alone, rewarded.
Mr. Speaker, the possibilities of adaptation of our industries will be considered, and even the creation of new industries if possible. Very well.
When we deal with markets, I feel that we give too much importance to export industries and not enough to manufacturing industries capable of reaching the private market. Certainly we should think about exports, and we can even boast of being one of the largest exporting countries.
And despite the fact that Canada ranks fourth among exporting countries, our trade balance is becoming more and more unfavourable. Is that not food for thought for our economists? I am not an economist but I have enough common sense as far as administration is concerned to realize that, if I sell 50 per cent of the lumber on my woodlot to pay my suppliers and still owe more, my lot is not producing as it should, or expenses have got out of hand.
While, with our exports in relation to our population, we should have enormous surpluses, we find in the end that we have increasing deficits. The defect certainly goes deeper than exports themselves. This deficiency in our economy is that we have completely ignored the local market. Consequently, we have taken great care not to help, encourage, back, not to mention all the other words used by the minister, the market we have here, within our reach, the domestic market.
I want to point out that these last years, the federal government gave all the assistance that was needed to certain industries, mainly to those with foreign capital, based on our natural resources, and completely forgot the smaller industries which could do nothing else but barely carry on in this one-way economy.
I could not say what the minister thinks about this but I am sure he could not help seeing that deficiency.

However, I fear his cure. In any case, if a better physician cannot be found, I hope with all my heart that he will rectify a mistake by helping the industries which should have been the first concern of the past governments, private industries, family industries. Thus, he would, I think, apply the effective cure to our deficit of payments by renewing, modernizing, multiplying and creating, in some cases, numerous private industries which have been needed for over 20 years in order to meet consumer demand and supply the domestic market which is today out of our control in a proportion of 60 per cent.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is urgent- and Social Crediters have been saying this over and over again for 25 years-to deal with the crucial problem of the processing industry in our country, without slowing down the growth of our big industry.
How many consumer goods are we obliged to import when it would be so easy to produce, manufacture and process them here?
I cannot go into details because I will do so when the bill is studied in committee, but you can see all the sectors that the processing industry could cover all over the country, thus giving work to thousands of workers who could more easily consume all the goods manufactured in our country.
In spite of what our good economists say, we Social Crediters remain convinced that the great ill of the day is the lack of purchasing power due to a faulty distribution of credit.
As long as our modern economy rests solely on supply and demand, without taking into account capital and distribution, we will go from recession to recession every three or four years at the whim of those who control the faucet of our credit and of our system of distribution.
Since it is mostly concerned with exports, our big industry will continue to have a surplus of production at certain intervals because there is not enough variety at the secondary level of industry and it will be our small industries which will suffer the most from that situation.
I wonder if the President of the Privy Council ever asked himself the following question. Would it not be those who control our monetary system who cause those ups and downs, those alternating periods of surplus and restriction?
28902-5-148J
Economic Council of Canada
When, for instance, your business has been going well for three or four years and everybody is working, the bank suddenly tells you that it must cut off your credit, and you wonder why, but the only answer you get is that banks have decided to do so all over the country.
Everybody must accept that decision, private individuals, provincial governments and even the federal government.
That is why encyclicals state that those who control credit and money also control the lives of people.
Yet, we look for an answer, we examine the situation and we nationalize everything that comes under provincial jurisdiction. We are so anxious to solve the problem that we no longer even hear the protests of the provinces. Are we not doing the same thing as the foolish virgins of the gospel?
Let us put our house in order before we start telling the provinces that they are unable to solve the problem of unemployment.
Actually, unemployment is not a problem at all; it is just the normal consequence of undue interference on the part of the central government.
What our major concern should be under the present circumstances is to nationalize bank credit.
That would keep the great centralizers busy for a while. Let them start by centralizing credit. Let them give back to the Bank of Canada the exclusive powers of making and issuing all credit across Canada.
In the industrial field you will admit that some industries in the present situation must be guided by the state and even state controlled.
In the monetary field, you will admit also that eight private companies are able to issue, on behalf of the state, the credit which represents its face value, its actual wealth.
I do not understand you or I understand you too well. Spelling out the facts might be the greatest scandal against the state and the people.
You remind me of a milk producer who wonders what to do with its product while consumers are waiting for it to survive. Everybody starves because our producer decided against the use of a delivery man to take it to the consumers.
Is it because they do not understand or is it because they are paid not to understand?

Economic Council of Canada That is the question we have the right to ask ourselves with respect to this government.
You persist in saying that the logical system of Social Credit is not feasible- because it does not suit the modern financiers and our would-be millionaires. But, at least, find a better one. And stop clowning in front of the people in order to distract their attention from the truth.
Those really responsible for our unappealing economy are not up on the moon. They are right here. They are the government and all the successive governments which sold out to big finance, and which are still living off the traitor's pay-off, surrendering their country to some financiers from whom they have accepted blood money.
The great remedy would be a nationalist government which would operate, at last, in the interest of the people who elect them and not of American finance.
Mr. Speaker, we are first of all for private enterprise, and we consider every act of the government as bringing assistance to that private enterprise.
Today, times have changed, and production must adapt to our atomic era and for that purpose, governments must support the almost superhuman efforts of private enterprise.
As for this bill, the federal government must give assistance, provided that doing so it does not violate any statute.
Under the pretense of playing the good Samaritan the federal government should not infringe upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
If the chairman of the future economic council abides by the standards stipulated in the bill, then we will be confident that this organization will be of valuable assistance in the improvement of our Canadian economy.
I would even dare ask something of the president. I acknowledge his high qualifications as a rational and enlightened economist, but I should like him to be a little more daring and I want to repeat this, I should like him to be a little more daring in his future research. In a word, would he stop just looking at facts? I have already seen many other economists doing just that.
I believe, sir, that your years of being factual are behind you and that your new duties require broader views. Stop being contemplative and initiate the new economic discoveries our country needs so urgently. Break away from the narrow framework of partisan philosophy and think of the greatness of our country.


I am not prone to condemn at first sight. That is why I will have faith in the new council.
I am sure that the government will be able to take advantage of all the suggestions put forward in this debate.
Let us not forget that the federal government has been created by the provinces and that it will not be able to work seriously and efficiently unless it obtains full co-operation from the ten provinces.
The objective of the government, namely to create a system of economic planning in Canada, with close consultation with the provinces and the private sector of our economy, is most commendable.
We hope, for the minister's sake, that we will not have to wait too long for the desired results in the best interests of the labour force of this country.
(Text):


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up a great deal of the time of the house today speaking on this bill. The subject, however, is a very important one. The scope for debate is very broad. This subject has recently occupied a great deal of our attention during the last two election campaigns, when it was mentioned from almost every platform in the country. I am sure it is a subject that is dear to the hearts of all Canadians, particularly since they have been somewhat frightened, bewildered and misled by the barrage of propaganda directed at them from the Liberals during the last two campaigns. The Liberals have been telling the people what a terrible state the country is in because of the Conservative government we have had for the last few years.
The purpose of this bill is to establish a council which will take a good look at the economy and report on the state of the economy. The Liberals would much prefer that any such report were given to them in private rather than to the public because they would much prefer to dispense their own kind of misinformation to the Canadian people. They have found it pays; they would not be in office if they were not so successful in selling this misinformation. However, I do not want to rehash the last two election campaigns. I do believe that we have had perhaps too much propaganda and not enough analysis of the factors in those parts of Canada's economy where the government can be useful.
A casual look at the subject will indicate the many roles a government can play. I am

sure that those of us who believe in private enterprise are not at all interested in trying to get the government into business any more than is absolutely necessary. We believe in the maxim that the best government is the one which interferes the least. However, the modern world in which we live and the competition from other nations, makes it almost impossible for an industry in Canada today to survive and expand as it must without some help from the government. Other nations have their industries regimented, assisted or controlled by the government. They are financed by the government. The laws of the country are made to assist these industries to export their goods. Whether we like it or not, therefore, in order for Canadian business to have a chance to compete the government must assist in some ways.
Some of this assistance, of course, has to be in the form of a guard against the harmful effects of governmental action by other countries, and the influence they have on their own industries and their own exports to this country. Some of the effects we must have would take the form of financial assistance to our own exporters who want to enter markets where the purchaser might not be financially sound or where the cash to purchase the goods is not readily available.
I am sure that we should have spent much more time in considering the fact that Canada is just a new manufacturing nation. We should have considered the fact that, while we are very proud of what we have in this country, generally as a nation we had had much less need for education in order to get along. The educational standards of Canadians, therefore, have been very low. If we had considered all these facts, we would have realized some of these fundamental difficulties a little quicker than we did. I am just citing this as one example of the way in which the government could have used a little more foresight, and I am wondering if there are similar areas in which foresight could have been used. We discovered, almost belatedly, that we did not have a pool of skilled workers. We started to try to change this country from a producer of raw materials to a manufacturing economy. We started to build new plants and found we did not have the skilled tradesmen necessary to man those plants. We started a crash program to train them. Now I suggest that if there had been more imagination, more consideration of what I call the fundamentals of Canada's economy, whether it be by a skilled advisory group or by a government, we would not have been so late in recognizing the need for these skilled tradesmen.
I am happy to think that the problem of Canadian ownership of industry is receiving
Economic Council of Canada attention. I was glad to see that the government was quick to withdraw the method by which it was suggested they would do something about it. Certainly, the fundamental point here is that you do not get people to do things by punishing them if they do not. You encourage them to do what you think is best for the country. If there is one thought I may give the house today in this respect, it is this point of the encouragement of Canadian ownership. Obviously if the country is going to change from a producer of raw materials to a manufacturing economy, large amounts of capital have to be found. If these large amounts of capital are to be imported, then we are going to have a good percentage of our means of production owned outside the country.
The alternative is to turn the Canadian from being a saver into being an investor. Canadians are too cautious, too slow to invest, too careful of their dollar. We must show a little more daring. The only way you can encourage this is by giving rewards for investment. I would suggest the only way this can be done is to put in a new incentive for the wage earner, put him in a new tax bracket if he invests a certain percentage of his earnings per year. This might be done through a payroll deduction plan. Let us offer companies these same tax concessions to spread out their shareholdings amongst many more Canadians. Every time they sell more stock in a company give them a special tax concession. Let us tie it all together with a buy-Canadian program. By laying stress on these things, we will give encouragement rather than discouragement. Perhaps we will start tackling these fundamental problems in the right way. I hope that those on the treasury benches, and this council when it comes into being, will at least consider this method I have suggested.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Gilles Grégoire: Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, before the question is put, I should like to rise on a question of privilege and I think I must do so today because of the remarks made by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) earlier this afternoon.
In fact, the hon. member attempted to mislead the house this afternoon when he rose on a question of privilege to say that a member of our party had indicated, in the Parliamentary Guide, that he was a member of the Liberal party, because had the hon. member read the English version, in the same volume one paragraph before he would have noted

Economic Council of Canada that the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) is shown as a member of Social Credit.
It is true that in the French version, the word "Liberal" is mentioned, but on the other hand, the hon. member could have seen the words "Social Credit" in the English version before the French one.
Mr. Speaker, I think the facts should be set straight the same day, when one of our members who is ill was accused unfairly. I think it was unfair to point that out to the house.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I had prepared a speech for second reading of this bill, but I do not want to delay the house. However I do wish to say as an unregenerate democratic socialist I do not expect too much to come out of this bill, regardless of the best intentions of the government, so long as the commanding heights of our economy are in the hands of monopolistic capitalism, and to a large extent in the hands of foreign owners.
I want to endorse completely everything that was said by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) and to place my position on the record so as to protect my flanks in the days ahead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The question is as follows: Mr. Lamontagne, seconded by Mr. Pickersgill, moves that Bill No. C-72, an act to provide for the establishment of an economic council of Canada, be now read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
(Translation) :
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, could the minister give me a short answer to this question? Why does he not take the opportunity of the federal-provincial conference to be held in a few days, to present this bill to the provinces and obtain better co-operation from all concerned?
(Text):


Robert Norman Thompson: I just wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that there has been a great deal said about economic planning and about the future of Canada during the course of this debate. The debate has ranged, on the one hand, from calling this legislation utterly useless and insipid, to calling it dangerous
[Mr. Gregoire.l

and dictatorial on the other. Taking a strictly objective and constructive view so far as the setting up of this economic council is concerned, I say it can render a great deal of good and a genuine service to Canada if certain precautions are heeded and a few fundamental changes are made to several of the sections.
There can arise real areas of conflict between the economic council of Canada and other regional and provincial economic councils, such as the Atlantic development board. In my opinion there is a real and pressing need in two areas so far as the function of the council is concerned. First it involves overall co-ordination and interlocking with provincial and regional economic boards and councils, and second there is a need to bring about a greater degree of co-operation and understanding between management, labour and government.
The greatest danger we see at the senior level of government is that it will appropriate to itself the sole responsibility for the creation and execution of all plans. In this respect I would like to read a portion of an editorial which appears on page 32 of the July issue of Canadian Business. This article is very timely, and it says under the heading "Too Much Government Elbowing":
The greatest danger we face is that our senior levels of government will appropriate to themselves sole responsibility for the creation and execution of all plans. It is still timely to remind ourselves that the prime responsibility of government should remain the clear delineation of long range objectives and the revamping of the financial and commercial structure through appropriate changes in taxes, tariffs, combines legislation and the like, to create an economic climate that encourages and prods private industry into constructive expansionary programs. If it is true, as indicated in the speech from the throne, that these are "times of great change throughout the world" when "the task before us is to seek out with wisdom and imagination, those new paths that will surely lead us forward," it is also true that the need for business to maintain maximum flexibility and freedom of choice is equally imperative. This requirement is not fulfilled by governments vying with each other to erect a multiplicity of new administrative bodies and to assume financial responsibility for activities now largely and more properly the responsibility of the private sectors of the economy . . . National and provincial attitudes with respect to taxation, industry rationalization, welfare, financial and fiscal policies all need to be formulated and pursued in a manner that aids and not hinders Canada's drive toward our minimum growth objective.
In this legislation we must have a guarantee that there will be full consultation with proper representatives of labour and management before instituting production expansion and research programs. What incentives for co-operation are there if the reports are to be withheld and if the findings of the council are not to be published? The question is simply, how do labour and management have

a hand in planning productivity and assistance programs if they are to be removed or elbowed out from the carrying out of programs introduced by the council, and which are taken over by the government? I think we should bear this in mind as we go through the clauses of the bill.


Mr. Gelber:: Mr. Chairman, planning has become fashionable but even though it is fashionable there is no reason it should not be examined. It seems to me there was much lacking in this debate, but the problem we are facing is a serious one for the country. This country must grow economically at a faster rate than it has been growing.
In certain parts of the house there is a feeling that we should go back to the free, automatic, self-correcting market, but this market does not exist any more. Since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald we have always interfered with the development of business in our national policy. We have directed business in certain channels, we have provided avenues for business to develop in, and have provided a climate in which investment can come to Canada.
Mr. Chairman, as our country has developed in two world wars we have come to a stage of industrial maturity more akin to that of the United States. At the present time our economy and state of industrial maturity are more similar than ever before in our history. One further illusion has been destroyed; that is, that the more dissimilar are our economies, the more our trade is increased. We have to create in Canada a proper framework in which business can develop and prosper.
There is a view that our future can be both bright and haphazard. This is a mischievous idea. We certainly knew in the depression of 30 years ago that the so-called free market could exact too great a price. The unregulated market can be unstable, it can be capricious, it can be irrational. This is not good enough. We now have economic tools which we and others have developed, that can be used to guide the development of our economy, to lead us to higher economic plateaus and, to provide a greater abundance for the people of Canada. In providing this economic context one of the things we have done is provide welfare payments, social insurance benefits, social assistance, health and welfare services, from all levels of government amounting to $3,300 million a year. This was the figure in 1961, which was 11 times what we had paid in the immediate post-war years. This is not only a great social advance but it helps provide a market; it helps provide an
Economic Council of Canada economic context in which business can develop. This represents an important social revolution and is a compelling economic fact. The key to economic growth is profitable investment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from a study made by the international labour organization, published in 1961, by a group of experts one of whom was Professor Benjamin Higgins of McGill University. It says this:
The experts' analysis of the nature of the problem confirms the belief that lack of employment opportunities is due largely to capital shortage. In their view policies for proper utilization of labour must therefore centre mainly on ways of increasing investment and of making the best use of such capital as countries have or can obtain.
The first requirement is to raise the level of investment. As employment opportunities increase, the living standards of those who would otherwise have remained unemployed or underemployed will rise and there will be an urgent need for larger supplies of food and other necessities.
The key to economic growth is investment. We must provide more job opportunities; we must provide 250,000 additional jobs each year in this country. We have the resources, we have the manpower and the plant. We must now direct our economic activities into channels which will provide a greater rate of economic growth. Total new capital outlays reached a peak in 1957, declined in subsequent years through 1961, but rose again in 1962 and appear to be going upward again in 1963. These totals, however, are not sufficient to create a level of full employment in this country. We have in Canada half a million unemployed. If we are to create a higher level of employment we must encourage the mobilization of our economic forces and create a greater flow of investment capital in order to accelerate our rate of economic development.
This bill is to call together, to negotiate, to talk to people who are concerned with planning. We are planning at all levels of government; we are planning in business. It is a matter of getting an over-all umbrella for the co-ordinating of a plan of economic development. This matter has urgency; this matter has importance; this matter is a challenge to Canada and is a step along the road to an over-all plan for the economic well-being of Canada, in co-operation with the provinces, municipalities and business. It opens up new opportunities for the development of this country.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Scoil:: No, Mr. Chairman. There are a few general remarks I should like to make on the bill and which we would have made on second reading except that we thought it
2322	HOUSE OF
Economic Council of Canada preferable to have second reading and make these remarks at the committee stage.
As has already been pointed out, the bill is really almost identical to the one brought before us by the previous government, which bill at that time intended to set up the national economic development board. There are two major changes in it, the enlarging of the permanent staff of one to three, which is a distinct improvement, and the arrangement for a greater amount of publication of some of the studies which the board will carry out. This in itself is, again, an improvement and is welcomed. However, beyond that point there is really not a great deal of difference between the two bills, unless the minister can draw some matters to our attention which have escaped our notice to this point.
My chief reason for wishing to participate in this debate is to deal with some aspects of the minister's speech when introducing the measure on second reading. The speech itself was an interesting one. Knowing the calibre of the minister and his general economic reputation, we expected nothing less from him. It was interesting chiefly because it was one of the few occasions when anyone in the chamber has attempted to substantiate by some reasonable, economic arguments the planning attitudes of the government. We have had a great deal of discussion from the Conservative party about regimentation, interference with individual rights, and all that sort of nonsense. But the minister's speech was a rational attempt to economically explain their position on planning. As I say, Mr. Chairman, we expected nothing less from him, knowing his reputation.
I would like to deal with some of the points he raised because we in this party feel that the attitude he expressed is to some degree economically unrealistic and is a misrepresentation-not an intentional one-of the positions and policies we have advocated in this and other debates when similar economic measures have been under consideration.
In his speech the minister spoke of two types of planning. He first spoke of what he called indicative planning, and then of imperative planning. I think we should make it perfectly clear for the record that this bill does not provide either indicative planning or what the minister calls imperative planning. The minimum requirements of good, effective indicative planning is a planning board that will use all the advanced technological facilities at the disposal of the economists and that, after its studies are completed, will come up with a picture of the economy of the country as they would like it to be; a picture of the economy that will use the input and output table analysis, that will show


the desired levels of production and the breakdown of the desired levels by industrial sectors, that will trace back how these can be developed. These tables will affect the employment of manpower and the location and distribution of capital investment. This picture of the economy is then made available to the country and to industry generally, and it is hoped they will use this picture or plan of the economy to guide their investment policies and to regulate the scope of their own economy. In short, it is hoped that the economic sectors of the economy, industry and other people involved will co-operate with regard to the levels of employment and investment which are envisaged in the government's plan and go beyond the levels of economic growth.
An analysis of this bill makes it perfectly clear that it does not even go that far. I know that at the conclusion of his speech the minister spoke of the necessity for devising a plan of economic development. That is not in the bill. Its terms of reference are very vague. It seems to be largely a factfinding, information-gathering, information-co-ordinating agency. As the council develops under the guidance of the minister, perhaps he will be able to turn it into a proper agency of indicative planning. We very much hope that this will be the case, but as it stands at the present time the bill does not provide for indicative planning as understood by economists and as indicative planning takes place in other countries of the world.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands dealt this afternoon in some detail with some of the indicative planning which has been done in France and the amazing amount of success which has followed it. For the information of members of the Conservative party who were very worried about infringement on the rights of big business and private enterprise, it is interesting to note that in France when indicative planning was commenced the business community were opposed to it. But then as they appreciated its advantages and the way it could assist them, people in private enterprise are now its proponents and some of its major supporters. When you examine our proposals in comparison with proposals in other countries of the world, Mr. Chairman, you will realize how weak this council will be. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands pointed out that the section of the French plan which prepared indicative planning has a permanent staff of 50 with casual employees numbering in the hundreds in order to draw up the type of indicative plan which is needed. Under this bill we have three permanent people, some part time directors and presumably some staff; but our

suggestion is that this type of organization is totally incapable of doing even the indicative planning of which the minister spoke.
The real tragedy of this is that good indicative planning does work. If you prepare a plan of your economy as you want it to be, and if the industries of the country are convinced that the proper amount of research, accurate information and the proper amount of time has gone into drawing up such an economic plan, probably at least 50 per cent of it will be effective. Our main objection is that unless you are prepared to add on to your general plan some agency to ensure that it is carried out, then the general effectiveness of the plan itself is greatly diminished.
The other matter the minister spoke about was what he called imperative planning. This is nothing but a straw man set up by the minister, which he immediately proceeded to knock over. It is a caricature of our position to suggest that the detailed over-all planning that we advocate requires a daily, detailed intervention by government in each sphere of economic activity. To some extent, as I have said, well prepared indicative planning does work if it is a genuine plan. It works even better if the sectors of the economy which are involved know that behind the desire for co-operation lies a mechanism which, if necessary, can be used to see that the plan is carried out. If plans are to be effective governments must be prepared to intervene at critical points in the economy to ensure that the plans are carried into effect. If you are not prepared to do that, Mr. Chairman, then you are just playing around with the whole concept of planning. If your economic plan provides the mechanism to see that it is carried out, you will never need to use it in 90 per cent of the cases, because if it is an effective plan which can be consummated by the government, private industry will go along with it and you will not be required to interfere in those sections of the economy.
The minister said in his speech that one reason he is opposed to imperative planning is that he does not think that imperative planning could work in an industrial society. He stated that this was an acceptable form of planning for underdeveloped areas but that it would not work in an industrial society. All the minister is saying in that sentence really is that in our industrial society as we know it now the existing power groups are already so strong and so well-entrenched that it would be very hard to deal with them. But whether the government plans or not, whether it leaves it to the spheres of private enterprise, planning does take place. If it is
Economic Council of Canada not done by the government in the interests of all the people, then it is done by private enterprise in its own interests. That is the complaint that we make with the statement made by the minister in introducing this bill.
The private sections of our economy plan for their own welfare, and plan very inefficiently. As far as I am concerned, I cannot understand why governments are not prepared to step in and protect the interests of the community as a whole. When a government steps in to see that a plan for the general welfare of the whole community is carried into effect, you are not at that stage interfering with the rights of private corporations; you are affirmatively asserting the rights of individuals in the community in general rather than interfering with the private rights of corporations.
The minister further said that effective planning or imperative planning would involve wage and price controls. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, that is nonsense. All you are doing with effective economic planning is controlling investment. Effective economic planning deals mainly and exclusively with the proper location of investment in the economic sphere of the country. For example, the minister said it would not work because we have a mixed economy in Canada. This again is not so. The mixed economies of Europe have had to use many of the planning techniques we in this party have advocated over the years, and they are working very well. So that a mixed economy can be adapted to the whole concept of proper and effective economic planning.
The minister also said that effective economic planning could not be used because we are living in a federal state, with the provinces having their own jurisdictions and their own areas of operation. This is a real problem. No economist could afford to ignore or overlook it. But surely the real problem is this, that our governments in the past have never really tried to solve the problems we face as far as the federal structure of Canada is concerned. We have always said that planning has to be federal, provincial, and much of it also municipal. The real difficulty is not hiding behind the problems which confederation creates but in trying to sit down, in co-operation with our provincial and municipal groups, and see that the present institutional and jurisdictional situations are developed in such a way that our planning can be effective.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands pointed out how the pensions scheme, if properly used, could provide a tremendous fund which could be allocated among our provinces. Once you begin federal planning you begin to draw in provincial

Economic Council of Canada bodies. They begin to co-operate in your schemes. You begin to draw in your municipal organizations. What we in Canada need is a permanent secretariat dealing with provincial and municipal matters. Perhaps we even need a minister of state for the provinces. Perhaps our provinces need departments of federal relations. But certainly the difficulty is not going to be solved merely by saying that our federal constitution makes effective and proper planning impossible. This is not so. What is required is to get into the whole field of economic planning, and then you will find that many of your constitutional difficulties will prove to be imaginative. The minister spoke of a plan. But that is not in the bill. Maybe he will tell us what authority is in the bill for drawing up such a plan. We should like to see it. He spoke about implementing a plan. We would like to know how. If the government is not prepared to intervene in the economy, how could it ever implement such a plan completely? Is it merely intending to rely on the co-operation of the people concerned?
In conclusion I should like to say a word in explanation of why we have been so insistent on discussing planning in this debate. When one examines the broad field of Canadian affairs he begins to realize how many matters await attention of governments both federal and provincial. There is, for example, chronic unemployment, the misallocation of investment, the lack of social capital to carry out important and necessary works, the slowness of regional development, the fluctuations in the business cycle of which the minister spoke and its reaction on our economy, the slow rate of growth and the fantastic changes which are taking place in the pattern of world trade. We believe that proper planning really can pursue the goal of full employment without endangering the balance of payments situation. We have been asking ever since this house assembled for some clear statement by the government on its trade policy. It is only by means of proper economic planning that we can really analyse our economy, find out what industries can compete in world markets and which are so inefficient that they cannot do so. It is only by means of proper economic planning that we can provide a scheme of adjustment assistance to industries which need such assistance during a period of transition. We are faced with all the difficulties posed by automation. We have to contend with a situation where so many of our assets are under foreign control. We must recognize that there is in Canada a lack of economic democracy- in practice the consumer has no rights, and no say about what is put on the market. His opinions are, in any case, created by the mass

media. There is still educational inequality. Does anyone in his right mind believe that all these things can be tackled and put to rights unless there is an over-all plan for Canadian development which would marshal all our resources, decide what we are capable of producing and determine how Canada can fit into the pattern of world trade?
I wish to emphasize once again that with the best intentions in the world this poor economic council will not be able to remedy this situation. It has neither the power nor the authority necessary to do even the elementary work of indicative planning, much less to see that the plans made are carried into effect.
Of course, the proposal represents a step forward and we intend to support it. We hope the chairman will take this council and make something of it. If this is done, perhaps in the years ahead Canada can move into the modern world of economic planning and take her place among some of the more progressive and forward looking nations of the world.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was a kind of informal arrangement-I do not wish to put it any higher that that-that we would try to finish this bill today, and I was wondering whether it would be the wish of the committee to sit on for half or three quarters of an hour with a view to trying to complete the committee stage.


John George Diefenbaker: In ordinary circumstances I think there would be agreement to continue to sit, but I know plans have been made by various members based on the assumption that we would rise at six o'clock, the regular closing hour.
I was glad to see the words of commendation used by the Secretary of State last evening with reference to the co-operative attitude shown by the house, but I think this is one occasion when it is impossible to accede to the request which has just been made, much as I would like to do so. In any event, there will be a good deal of discussion on this subject. I am very anxious to hear the President of the Privy Council as he gives us, as I am sure he will, the philosophy which will animate the government in connection with the operation of this economic council. We are as desirous as can be of hearing the hon. gentleman translate the philosophy in the book which was mentioned-I gave only part of the name when I referred to it in the house; I gave the second part of the name and left out the major part. I noticed on examination of Hansard that the hon. gentleman asked me a question, a question I did not hear, as to whether or not I would give the full name of the book. Anyway, I am

sure the hon. gentleman will wish to elucidate .some of his philosophy. We have been anxious to hear him translate into concepts for parliament the general views expressed by him during the days when he represented the tribune of the Liberals. I am sure the house would not desire to deprive itself of the fullest opportunity to hear the hon. gentleman. This is an important piece of legislation and anything on our part which might rush it to a conclusion would certainly not be a proper discharge of our responsibilities in the opposition.


Robert Norman Thompson: The situation in which we now find ourselves in this house does not allow time for light hearted jesting about what we should or should not be doing. We have wasted hours and hours on this bill without referring to the specific items with which we are concerned.


An hon. Member:: Wasted?


Robert Norman Thompson: Yes, a lot of the time has been wasted. It seems to me we should realize that there is a certain amount of work which we should be accomplishing, and get down to the business with which this bill actually deals.


An hon. Member:: Politics.


Robert Norman Thompson: This is not a question of politics. Mr. Chairman, if you would ask certain members to be quiet you might be able to hear what I have to say. We are very willing to co-operate in extending the time of sitting in this house, now or on some other occasion, in order to get down to the work we are supposed to be doing; but as long as there continues to be the attitude which some people have in this house I do not suppose we shall really make any progress.
It had been informally agreed by the different parties in this house that we would try to get this through tonight. However, some of the most important aspects of the measure are still ahead of us. It is time we began to deal item by item with the work before us, allowing sufficient time for this to be done. Otherwise, we shall be running contrary to everything which was said during the earlier stages of debate. I am sorry we are not going ahead to make the extensive progress which we could have done today had we wished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What has already been said makes it clear we are not going to sit beyond six o'clock, though the clock I am looking at does, indeed, give us a few minutes longer. In order to clear up what may be a misconception, let me say I know of a general understanding that we would try to finish second reading today. I think we have kept that
Business of the House understanding. I knew of no understanding that we would attempt to finish any of the later stages.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentlemen would read the words I used last night as reported in Hansard he would see that they admit of only one interpretation. However, I think it would be fruitless to split hairs in connection with it.
Clause 1 stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. gentleman rises may I say I believe there is a general understanding that it is agreeable to all hon. members to have an order of the house to continue until the end of the month of July the hours of sitting that we have been following during the present week. If that could be so noted it would save having a formal motion and save a little of the time of the house in that way.


John George Diefenbaker: That represents the agreement. I think it is a good idea. I think it is reasonable and it is not oppressive in any way.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, we agree that we should continue with the hours that we have been following this week, and if it will facilitate getting through the work which I think it is generally agreed we should be getting through the hours might even be extended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What the Secretary of State asks for is what we agreed to originally and we stand by it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hours of the house for the rest of the month shall be the same as they are now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Monteith:: I have just one question. How does this affect the hours of sitting on Friday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I understand it, the hours of sitting on Friday are from 11 o'clock in the morning, with the usual luncheon adjournment, until 6 p.m. The government would be very happy if the house would consider sitting on Friday evening but I am not asking for that. Hon. members might think about it and if they think it might be useful in making progress we could decide that on Friday. I say that the government would be very happy but I am not asking for any decision now.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask the house leader a question in this regard? If we wait until

Business of the House Friday to decide whether we are going to sit on Friday evening it will seriously disrupt the plans of a great many members of the house who otherwise would be going home for the week end. This actually happened last Friday because last Thursday I understood it was agreed that we would sit until midnight on Friday. Many of our members agreed to do that, and then some time on Friday afternoon the arrangement was changed and the plans of a number of members for their week end activities were seriously affected.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can repeat that if the house is in the mood to accept a decision now to sit on Friday evening no one would be as happy as I would.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Apparently the order is going to cover the same hours as we have now. Would the house leader reiterate his outline of the business for tomorrow and Friday at least?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was understood that tomorrow we would start at once with the Canada pension plan resolution. That would be the order for the whole day, unless debate should be completed before the day is over. It was indicated that on Friday-and the hon. member for Perth spoke about this last night -if there was a general understanding that there would not be a protracted debate, we would take the customs tariff bill and also the other tariff bill first; but if there were to be a protracted debate I think we would prefer to leave them over until next week. In any case, the main item of business for Friday would be the income tax resolution, and should that be completed we would then go on with the excise tax resolution. Those two items and the tax bills will be the business for next week until they have been completed.


[Stage Direction]
It being seven minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 18, 1963