January 29, 1963

?

André Ouellet

Mr. Ouellel:

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

Topic:   SONJA BAGRY
Permalink
NDP

Frank Howard

New Democratic Party

Mr. Howard:

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

Topic:   SONJA BAGRY
Permalink
?

André Ouellet

Mr. Ouellel:

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

Topic:   SONJA BAGRY
Permalink
NDP

Frank Howard

New Democratic Party

Mr. Howard:

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

Now we have another witness. This is the key witness, the individual who knows about the night of June 13. This is the man who comes forward with the evidence about the pink pyjamas, ruffled beds, dented pillows, rumpled sheets, and all the other gory details which private investigators love to reveal to

the committee of the other place on the question of whether or not adultery has taken place. The other two witnesses, so far as the proof of adultery on June 13 is concerned, do not matter. One of them did not have the foggiest idea about that night, and the other one did not remember about that particular night. Now we have a Mr. Armand Masse, who gives his age as 22, his address as Montreal, and his occupation as a collector. He was sworn through an interpreter and I presume would have testified in the French language, and had his evidence interpreted all the way through by the interpreter attached to the committee in the other place. He was shown a picture of the respondent and is asked whether he recognized it, and he said it was the respondent. Then he is asked:

Did you have the opportunity to meet Mr.-

and then he gave the name of the respondent, to which he answered that he had, twice. Here is a gentleman who did not know the respondent, as the grocer did for seven years. He had not lived in the house as a boarder as the cutter, the other witness, had. He had met him on two occasions. Then the question is:

Could you tell us on these two occasions what happened?

A. The first time I went there I gave a reason for going there, and I asked him who was living there with him, in the apartment, and he showed me his boarder and his wife.

Mr. Chairman, can you put yourself in that position? A man comes to your house. He does not know you, meets you for the first time, gives you a reason for coming to you, and asks you who is living in your house. Would you automatically say: "Yes, here is my boarder and my wife", when this individual is just a collector, unless he represented himself as a private detective, or something like that? Then the next question is:

Is the person that he showed you as his wife present in this room?

A. Yes, there.

Then he pointed to somebody who the chairman discovered by question was the corespondent. This is a person, who is the corespondent, in the committee room according to two or three different witnesses, and it is a wonder to me that the lawyer did not take steps to give testimony with respect to the allegation of adultery inasmuch as she was there in the committee room. She did not have to give evidence. Perhaps her lawyer asked her and she said no, but it would have been much simpler than to have had this parade of witnesses, so far none of whom knew anything at all about the alleged adultery having taken place on the night of June 13. The chairman continued:

Do you know the petitioner sitting beside her counsel?

Divorce Bills

A. I haven't seen her before this morning.

Q. On the second occasion what happened?

This is the second time he went back to the house where the respondent lived.

A. I rang the bell about two o'clock in the morning. A lady came out on the balcony in her night attire and said she would call the police if we stayed there, so we went back.

I would point out that there is no further indication in the evidence as to who those persons were; whether this person Armand Masse, who classified himself as a collector, went back with somebody else, or what happened. But the word "we" is used. Then the lawyer asked further questions:

Which person told you that?

A. The lady there at the back (indicating the corespondent).

Mr. Chairman, remember this. At two o'clock in the morning somebody comes to the house and rings the bell. On the evidence of this grocer this couple lived upstairs. Then a lady came out on the balcony and said that she would call the police if they did not go away, and that same person merely recognized her in the committee of the other place as the person who came out onto that balcony.

Topic:   SONJA BAGRY
Permalink
PC

Rémi Paul (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Deputy Chairman:

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

Topic:   SONJA BAGRY
Permalink
NDP

Reid Scott

New Democratic Party

Mr. Scott:

In connection with this bill, Mr. Chairman, there is one matter which I should like to draw to the attention of the committee. Having reviewed the evidence as we are required to do, I would take slight issue with the hon. member for Skeena. I think the evidence has proved the case and that normally the bill would be granted. However, there is one issue on this bill which we should consider, namely the matter of domicile. The members of the other place have taken the position that, in order to consider this divorce the husband to the marriage must be domiciled in the province of Quebec. On reviewing the evidence in connection with this bill I find there seems to be considerable doubt whether or not the husband in this particular case was domiciled in Quebec.

The evidence discloses that he was married May 8, 1945, in Braunschweig, Germany, and that he later came to Canada in 1947, where the couple lived in the city of Montreal. In 1949, the evidence discloses that he ran away and went to some place known as Toronto. The husband in this case would have a domicile of origin in Germany and could not acquire domicile in Montreal in the space of two years, or at least not without some substantial evidence being adduced in order to indicate that this event had taken place. As all hon. members are aware, everyone has a domicile of origin, namely the place in which

Divorce Bills

he was born and it stays with him throughout life unless it is relinquished and a domicile of choice is acquired. In these circumstances, the husband having lived in Montreal for only two years, there is no evidence that he ever acquired a domicile of choice in the province of Quebec. In any event, in 1949 he ran away to Toronto, although he later came back and lived in the city of Montreal once again.

The most important ingredient in the law of domicile is not merely living in a particular province but rather living there with the intention of remaining there forever. That is the essential ingredient which must be proven in order to show that domicile of origin has been relinquished and that domicile of choice has been acquired. In this particular case the only evidence we have before us is that of several witnesses, one of whom testified that the defendant's husband lived in these particular quarters for two years. The second witness says he thinks he lived there for six years. In those circumstances I am surprised that the other place would have entertained this bill. This evidence would clearly not prove domicile in the province of Quebec.

Under normal circumstances it would be required that the defendant husband be called as witness and that he be examined by members of the other place in order for them to -satisfy themselves that he was not only living in Quebec but that he intended to remain there forever. There is no evidence that the gentleman was sinking his roots in the community, that he was carrying on a business, that he was owning property or that he was doing any of the other things which are usually regarded by the court in order to establish domicile of choice.

I notice that the defendant husband was served on October 16, 1961, and that the bill was considered on January 20, 1962. In the circumstances, it seems rather strange that the defendant husband was not brought before the committee since he apparently was readily available. Had he been brought before the committee, he could then have been questioned in order to establish his *domicile. What I am suggesting to the committee is that perhaps this bill should be referred back for consideration of the matter of domicile. My submission is that the husband was domiciled in Germany, that on the evidence before us he has never acquired a domicile of choice in the province of Quebec and that therefore under the rules of the other place they could not have taken jurisdiction in this matter.

As I say, I cannot understand why this matter was not pursued in the other place. In any event, such appears to be the case. We therefore suggest that this matter go

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

Topic:   SONJA BAGRY
Permalink
NDP

Frank Howard

New Democratic Party

Mr. Howard:

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

Topic:   SONJA BAGRY
Permalink
PC

Rémi Paul (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Deputy Chairman:

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

Topic:   SONJA BAGRY
Permalink
NDP

Frank Howard

New Democratic Party

Mr. Howard:

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

Progress reported.

Topic:   SONJA BAGRY
Permalink

NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD

PROVISION FOR DEFINITION OF DUTIES, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, ETC.


The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-87, to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board-Mr. Nowlan-Mr. Paul in the chair. At six o'clock the committee took recess. AFTER RECESS The committee resumed at 8 p.m. On clause 3-Establishment of board.


PC

Gordon Campbell Chown (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

The Chairman:

When the committee rose at five o'clock it had under consideration section 3. An amendment had been proposed

National Economic Development Board

thereto by the hon. member tor Hamilton East which reads as follows:

That section 3 be amended as follows: That the period in line 15 be replaced by a comma and the following words be added:

"After consultation with the principal organizations representative of trade unions, farmers, and other groups as the governor in council may determine."

Topic:   NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR DEFINITION OF DUTIES, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, ETC.
Permalink
NDP

William Arnold Peters

New Democratic Party

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this amendment before five o'clock I had suggested that the clause would be strengthened if rather than merely appointing these representatives after consultation with the organization they were to be designated upon request by the various organizations to which they belong. I believe that there should be representatives of business, labour, agriculture, consumers groups and other organizations interested in this field.

One of the problems we have had with other legislation, a good example of which is that having to do with the productivity council, arises from the fact that in that organization, for instance, while there is provision for consultation with the various organizations and some opportunity for them to be represented, difficulties have arisen with regard to acceptance by the government of the representatives of those organizations, and in my opinion this situation has not proved to be advantageous.

I go back a considerable length of time to when this country did have difficulties to face and when much greater assistance than simply participation was sought from labour, business organizations, trade groups and even consumer groups. At that time many of these organizations were allowed to appoint their own representatives and such a procedure means that representatives appointed in this way carry with them the responsibility of being able to commit the organizations they represent to some extent.

It seems to me that if the trade union movement, for example, is to be represented on this new board the representative of labour should be appointed in a manner which will allow him to commit the trade labour movement from the point of view of participation in the activities of the national economic development board. When he made a suggestion he would know that he would have the strength of his organization behind him and that the organization would throw its weight behind the suggestion. I put this idea forward for the simple reason that when the government makes an appointment they do not necessarily choose the person best qualified to represent the organization. This is true, of course, of business or any other organization.

I think of what happened in the United States when Wilson of General Motors was appointed by the government of that country

to carry out a particular job. He took with him to that appointment the tacit agreement of General Motors that if he proposed a certain measure in the interests of the economy of his country General Motors would lend its support and help to put it into effect. Rather than the government simply consulting various organizations with regard to appointments to this board, I think the board would be strengthened if the various organizations were allowed to appoint their representatives, with the understanding that any suggestions they put forward would have the support of the organizations they represented.

I am not completely familiar with what has happened in the case of the industrial estates in the maritimes but I understand that such a practice has been followed to some extent in that instance. I understand that the representatives in the industrial estates-perhaps I should refer to it as the economic council-can to some extent commit the organizations which have appointed them, and I think this is very worth while.

I hope this suggestion will be given some consideration. It may be that the mover of the amendment would like to strengthen it by including some provision whereby representatives of various organizations would carry with them the authority to commit their organizations to some extent at least. The government is not going to provide all the impetus in the matter of economic development and I think those who participate as representatives must carry with them some responsibility for the organizations they represent and that the organizations should accept the responsibility of naming representatives to the advisory council.

Topic:   NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR DEFINITION OF DUTIES, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

George Clyde Nowlan (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nowlan:

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

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

Topic:   NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR DEFINITION OF DUTIES, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Paul Joseph James Martin

Liberal

Mr. Martin (Essex East):

The acceptance by the minister of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton East represents a strengthening of the clause, as urged by the hon. member and supported by the hon. member for Timiskaming. As the minister has said, it would be inconceivable if in the establishment of a board such as this, consideration was not given to the important opinion of labour, management and other essential segments of Canadian opinion. Indeed we would be defeating the purposes of the bill. We would be ignoring the recommendations made by the productivity council's special mission to Europe.

I think we have a right to ask the minister what the government's view is with regard to the recommendations made by the special mission of the productivity council to Europe. Reference has been made a number of times to this very important report, a unique document in itself. We have not had from the government, from any of the ministers who have spoken nor can I recall any observations or supporting statements being made by any hon. member sitting behind the ministry. This is the clause on which we should have a statement of opinion from the government as to its view with regard to the recommendations made. It will be no answer to say that the recommendations were made to the productivity council, because that would ignore one of the essential features of this bill which should be predicated on labour-management co-operation.

On page 5 of the report of the special mission the commissioners unanimously agree on the course to be taken. They say, first of all, that there is a high level of economic activity in all of the countries in Europe visited by them. They point out that practically all of the labour forces are gainfully employed, and that generally job vacancies exceed the numbers not employed. They further point out that plant productive capacity, with few exceptions, is being fully utilized and that wages, both real and nominal, have been rising at an appreciable pace.

They point out that employers appear to be prosperous and confident for the future and then, at page 5, they go on to say:

There is little doubt that labour-management-government co-operation has contributed greatly to this general prosperity. It would be misleading, however, to attribute the prosperity of Europe solely to this co-operation. Many factors, some of which have little relationship to labour-management-government co-operation, have played a major role in bringing about this prosperous state of affairs.

They then go on to point out, on the same page, the principal factors involved in European prosperity. On page 6 they say:

The mission was impressed with the spirit of the relationship existing between labour, management and government, the way in which they worked together in the national interest, and the mechanism of consultation and co-operation which has been established and used to achieve economic successes in most countries visited. The spirit of co-operation between labour and management and the process of consultation with each other and with government in economic development is not confined to the national level. The spirit has spread to the industry and plant levels in most countries and the machinery for consultation and co-operation is working in industries and plants through joint councils and committees at that level as well.

Then they conclude:

At the national level the consultative function in economic development is carried out through joint councils or bodies whose members, particularly from labour and management, represent the major interests involved in the economic life of the country.

Then they point out the gap which exists between western Europe labour-management-government co-operation, and the measure of co-operation which prevails in Canada between these three important divisions of Canadian occupational interest.

This report cannot be allowed to gather dust. We are entitled to know from the government if it proposes to accept the recommendations made by this special mission to Europe. If the government is prepared to accept these recommendations, then the place to give effect to them is in this bill. Unless this is done we tonight are not going to be engaged in setting up an organism capable of doing what the special committee to Europe said is necessary to be done in Canada, if we are to meet the problems of production, the competitive position Canada has with regard to other countries, and the like.

I hope the minister will take advantage of our discussion on this clause to tell us that the government is going to implement this report. If the government is not prepared to implement it, he should tell us why, and indicate in what particular the report is not acceptable if it is not completely acceptable. Nothing less than this will satisfy those people who want to see us establish in this national economic development board an organism capable of doing the kind of thing that is being attempted in the United Kingdom and what is being done in France, Belgium and the other countries covered by the report of the special mission of the productivity council.

We have heard a lot from the government about labour-management co-operation, but we have not had any real evidence of a deep conviction on the part of the administration that this represents their point of view and

National Economic Development Board

accepted philosophy of the kind of arrangements and relationships which must be established in the changing society which confronts us in Canada as in other free countries of the world.

It is significant that in 1961 the cabinet is supposed to have vetoed a proposal made by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce for a plan providing for co-operation between labour, management and the government, to work as a team in tackling Canada's economic problems. It is reported, moreover, that agreement was reached on the plan in March, 1961 at a conference of labour, management and government leaders in Ottawa, but that it was promptly suppressed later on orders from a higher level.

Has the situation changed? We were told that this plan, similar to the industry council plan set up in France, was agreed upon at the conference and that it was determined to set up a permanent tripartite council to foster continuing co-operation and consultation on economic problems, just as is being done in western Europe and Britain. This report, excerpts of which I have read tonight, supports what was attempted by at least two ministers of the government in 1961. A vital question now is whether in scuttling this 1961 plan the federal cabinet, and presumably the Prime Minister, were not in favour of the program for co-operation and consultation proposed. We are entitled therefore to have from the government its views on this special mission to Europe. We are entitled to know whether there is going to be a revival of the 1961 plan, and whether as a result we are going to make this bill the instrument which exists in European countries and which has contributed so much to the level of prosperity in that section of the world. I hope the minister-and I am sure he is-is taking notes and paying attention to what we are saying tonight.

Topic:   NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR DEFINITION OF DUTIES, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, ETC.
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR DEFINITION OF DUTIES, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Paul Joseph James Martin

Liberal

Mr. Martin (Essex East):

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

Topic:   NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR DEFINITION OF DUTIES, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

George Clyde Nowlan (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nowlan:

Keep reading from Tory documents.

Topic:   NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR DEFINITION OF DUTIES, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Paul Joseph James Martin

Liberal

Mr. Martin (Essex East):

-and we propose by suggestions and amendments which we are going to make tonight and during the course of the discussion to try and make it a document comparable at least in principle and in substance to what they have in Britain, to what they have in France and to what one of our own government agencies has said we : should have in Canada.

We have no evidence that the government has such an intention in mind, because we all recall the discussion concerning the Atlantic development board. We recall the discussion on the resolution with regard to amendments to the productivity council bill. We remember what the Minister of Labour had to say about the mobility of manpower and automation resolution. We recall, too, the initial statement made by the Minister of Finance. The result is that we have four boards functioning, dealing basically with the same purpose, operating under four different ministers, with no method or proposal whatsoever for co-ordination. This national economic development board ought to be the main body. It is the "national" economic development board. It ought to be able to give the guiding direction, not by compulsion but by persuasion, by example, to the Atlantic development board. It ought to be able to lay down for the productivity council ways and means of getting out of the embarrassing position in which that body finds itself as a result of the reluctance of labour to co-operate with the productivity council, because it feels that the productivity council does not operate on a wide enough base. But what do we find? We find this board, in clause 3, is going to be made up of a chairman and not less than 14 and not more than 24 members. I do not know how the minister arrives at this figure of 24 members. He has not told us. I would ask him to tell us why the membership of the productivity council is larger than that of the national economic development board, the body which should be the co-ordinating, overriding agency over all these boards which are designed to provide for the kind of limited concept of planning which the government has in mind.

The minister has not told us anything about the character of the representation to be provided by this board which is going to be made up of not less than 14 members. Are the provinces to be represented? This surely is an important consideration, because the minister himself mentioned, when he was discussing clause 2, that there were constitutional limitations within the jurisdiction of the federal government which made it necessary to rely on the action of the provinces, which have power under the property and civil rights clause of the British North America Act. Are the provinces to be represented on this board? Are the various sections of economic interest to be represented on this board? Are the Atlantic provinces to be represented on this board? Are the western provinces to be represented on this board? Are the farmers to be represented on this board?

3238 HOUSE OF

National Economic Development Board

Topic:   NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR DEFINITION OF DUTIES, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, ETC.
Permalink

January 29, 1963