1959-05-28

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park) presented the sixth report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I should like to inform the house that an announcement is being made in London today of a further major step toward the dismantling of the United Kingdom's restrictions on purchases from Canada and other dollar countries. Effective June 8, restrictions on dollar imports will be completely removed from some 110 items including a number not previously liberalized from non-dollar countries. In addition nondiscriminatory quotas will be established for 14 items for the next United Kingdom quota year. The existing dollar quotas for the current year will be enlarged for five other products. Most of the items on which controls are being removed can already be imported freely from western European countries and other commonwealth countries. This liberalization move represents an important and welcome measure of progress toward the elimination of discrimination against Canadian exports.
The steps which have now been taken by the United Kingdom are in accordance with the undertaking given by the president of the board of trade at the commonwealth conference in Montreal last September. At that time he said that all being well the United Kingdom would make a start this year with the removal of dollar restrictions on as wide a range of consumer goods and foodstuffs as possible. Most of the items affected by the latest liberalization move fall into these categories.
The products of particular importance to Canada which are now being completely freed from control include cheese, eggs, honey,
cereal breakfast foods, macaroni, canned soups and vegetables, paints, leather and leather manufactures including footwear, rubber manufactures including tires and tubes, hollow ware and hardware, wooden-ware and domestic electric appliances.
Canadian producers will have access to global quotas for such products as sporting goods, toys and games, stationery, clocks and watches and costume jewellery, fresh pears, canned apples and paper manufactures. Dollar quotas will be increased for other types of canned fruits and for motor vehicles.
Canadian producers of a considerable number of items formerly subject to discrimination have now been placed on a footing of equality with non-dollar suppliers in the United Kingdom market. This will open up new opportunities for the expansion of Canada's export trade, and will contribute to the desirable strengthening of trade relations between Canada and the United Kingdom.
We are pleased that at this time the United Kingdom government should have moved in this substantial way toward carrying out the program for the removal of dollar restrictions announced at Montreal. Discrimination will still remain with respect to quite a number of Canadian products, but we hope it will not be too long before we shall see the end of the restrictions against dollar goods which the United Kingdom and other sterling area countries have felt obliged to maintain throughout the post-war period.
We welcome the widening of markets which the dismantling of these restrictions will bring about. We welcome also the great improvement in the economic position of the United Kingdom which has enabled her to make sterling convertible and to proceed with the removal of artificial barriers to trade.
With the permission of the house I will table a list of the items which have been liberalized. I have four copies here; other copies will be available later this afternoon.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we on this side welcome this news of further liberalization of trade between the United Kingdom and Canada. We hope this process will continue until all the discriminations which have existed for many years will have been removed. The process of removal has been going on for a long time.

Proposed Legislation
We welcome this move also because it is a reflection of the economic and financial strength of the United Kingdom itself. These considerations, of course, have been an obstacle in the way of liberalization over the years. We hope this liberalization can be extended not only to the United Kingdom but to the sterling area as a whole. I am thinking particularly of trade between Canada and the West Indies.
In so far as this represents a move toward the achieving of this final objective, I am sure all hon. members on this side will greatly welcome this announcement.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, any move that reduces trade barriers in the world is welcome. Since we all are quite aware that Canada is dependent for her prosperity to a very large extent on export markets, anything that is done to make it possible for Canada to maintain and increase markets is, of course, welcomed. The United Kingdom is an exceedingly important market for Canadian goods, and this is an additional reason why we are happy at the announcement that has been made.
We realize at the same time that it is becoming more difficult to maintain markets for Canadian goods. The European common market has raised certain difficulties. The government frequently refers to increasing competition from the U.S.S.R. which adds to the difficulties facing Canada today in the export and trade fields generally. We welcome this announcement as a move in the right direction.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the minister has leave to table the document to which he referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LENGTH AND MASS UNITS ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: the first reading of Bill No. S-20 (from the Senate), to amend the Length and Mass Units Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: the first reading of Bill No. S-21 (from the Senate), to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
[Mr. Pearson.}


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is an explanation required?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why not?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: What is parliament for?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the standard of mass for Canada is the pound. There has been an alteration in the relationship of the value of the pound to the kilogram according to an international agreement, and it is necessary to incorporate that change in these bills.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Notwithstanding the decision taken by the house the other day, having regard to the fact that the particular document has now appeared in the press textually will the minister now table the minutes of the meeting of the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission held last August 19?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, a decision was made by this house the other day as to whether or not the minutes should be tabled. As to the newspaper article to which the hon. member referred, I have no information as to the source of the information which served as the basis of the article.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give the house an assurance that the document that has appeared in the press is an accurate account of the meeting?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge as to whether or not it is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In answer to the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition, and due to the fact that this hidden report has now been made public, does the minister not think this house is entitled to have the same information that has been given outside this house.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Was the hon. member asking about the statement or was he pursuing the question of tabling? Because, as has been

properly said by the minister, the house did take a decision with respect to tabling of this document, and it would not be proper for any member to ask that it be done in contravention of the decision of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I was seeking to establish, as the Leader of the Opposition did indicate, is that a new situation has been established, namely that the document which the minister said was privileged, the minutes of the committee, had been made known to the Canadian people through the press. The fact is that now, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the minutes of this meeting have appeared in the press of this country, and as a result surely we are entitled to a disclosure in this house such as has been made outside.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I may say to the hon. member that first the decision of the house would have to be disposed of. There is a procedure for dealing with the matter but the minister, in my view of the present situation, is prevented by a decision of the house from tabling the document, until that decision has been changed or removed. There is a procedure by which that can be done. It would not be proper to act in contravention of the decision of the house.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may raise a point of order in that connection. The decision of the house was surely that the house would not compel the government to table the document, but the house did not decide to forbid the government from tabling it. It is a well recognized rule that the government may table any document in defence of its policies that in its wisdom it feels should be tabled, and it is in that context that we are urging that it be tabled now.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word or two on this point of order. What the hon. member's suggestion really means is that if he or any of his colleagues can get hold by devious means, of a document to which they are not entitled, then the government has to table that document.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Just a minute. Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, without commenting on the minister's language, "by
Inquiries of the Ministry devious means", which is of doubtful propriety, this document has appeared in the press, and that is why we are asking the government to reconsider its decision to refuse to table the document, which was made before it appeared in the press. It has now appeared in the press and surely, Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we should know whether or not this is a document of the government. The only way that can be done is by having it tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: I am impressed by the argument that the decision made by the house was to negative the request that this document be produced. It may be that the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is right, namely that the government or a minister is free to submit documents to the house of his own volition.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there is a well known and well understood rule with regard to privileged documents which I have heard my hon. friends opposite, when in office, invoke time without number. I am surprised that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who has set himself up, on his own admission, as an authority with regard to the custody of official documents-and indeed he has a number of them in his possession at the moment in connection with another matter that he is pursuing- should say that if a document leaks and some portions of it are purported to be reported in the press, then all confidentiality between the government and its civil service advisers should be broken and the document must be tabled in the house. To say that is to make nonsense of the whole system of the confidential relationship between the government and the civil service of which my hon. friend has always pretended to be an upholder.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I have a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not quite sure what the subject matter of the debate is. We are now at the period of oral questions. There have been two or three questions asked about this document and they have been answered. It seems to me there is no need for any further decision or any further discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I have a question of privilege in relation to the misrepresentation of what I said. You have just listened to the Minister of Justice. I never said anything about the confidentiality of this document or anything at all about its nature. All I said was that it was a well

Inquiries of the Ministry known rule of the house that notwithstanding the fact that the house would not order the production of privileged papers, the government was always free to table privileged papers when it saw tit to do so. That will be found in May. I cannot give the citation offhand, but I could look it up very quickly.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In reply to a question of mine on March 10 as to whether the government would disallow the Newfoundland legislation that is of such a controversial nature, the Prime Minister replied that consideration was being given to that question. Can the Prime Minister now say whether consideration is still being given to the question, or whether a decision has in fact been made to disallow the legislation?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, consideration is still being given to that question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the government, by refusing to make a decision within the legal period of one year, in fact going to allow the legislation to remain in effect without taking a stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that the government has not refused to disallow the legislation within the period of one year. He is asking a hypothetical question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then I have a further supplementary question. Is it the intention of the government to make a decision within the one year period?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I first point out that a period of approximately two and a half months has gone by. That leaves a considerable constitutional period within which to consider the matter finally.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will a decision be made within that time?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister comment on newspaper reports to the effect that an unidentified submarine had been sighted off the Nova Scotia coast.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, while at Saint John attending a civil function H.M.C.S. Nootka was ordered by the flag officer, Atlantic command, to investigate a report from a source which appeared reliable that an unidentified submarine had been sighted. I am sure that all concerned regretted the departure of the Nootka from Saint John before the ceremonies had been completed but the people of Saint John will realize, as do all Canadians, that the primary duty of the Royal Canadian Navy is to protect our coasts and our shipping.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Was the minister pleased with the results of this test of his eastern defences?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The navy always carries out its job well.


Mr. Fulfon:: Possibly Premier Smallwood had declared war again.



AUTOMOBILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is in a liberal mood this afternoon, whether, in view of the announced fact that under the new trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the Soviet union the latter will be able to export automobiles to the British market, the government will give immediate consideration to an arrangement with the United Kingdom for the export of Canadian manufactured automobiles on terms, not less generous than those now accorded by Canada to the United Kingdom for export to this country of British made automobiles?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's suggestion will be given full consideration.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, notice of which was sent to him. Has the minister any information that might allay the bitterness in northwestern Ontario over the fact that regional contractors were not invited and thus were unable to bid on the construction of stations along the line of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any bitterness. There may have been some misunderstanding with regard to this operation. The Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation has under construction this summer three compressor stations. These projects are specialized in nature and are subject to a very stringent completion date. They are required to ensure a continuous supply of natural gas to the eastern Canadian market and must be in operation by November 1, 1959; therefore, Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation decided, on the advice of its engineers, to invite tenders from a selected group of contractors having specific experience in the type of construction involved. Twelve firms were invited to tender.
The corporation has called for public tenders for clearing, grubbing, roadwork, and the supply and erection of structural steel, and it is planned to advertise for public tenders in the near future for housing and office facilities at these stations. It is not considered feasible further to subdivide the project.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether the government of Canada has made any loans to the unemployment insurance commission since May 7?


Michael Starr: have not that information at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I can get it.



MR. CHURCHILL-REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE ON MAY 27

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I do not need to raise if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) will rise and make the correction in Hansard which I asked him to make last night. If he is prepared to do that I need not say anything further. Yesterday in the course of his speech I suggested to him that he had used the word "minister" when he was talking about the hon. member for Assiniboia, and that from the context he could not refer to anyone but me. I am not now suggesting nor have I ever suggested that we have ample resources to nationalize any great pipe line. The reference I am making is to page 4071. If the correction is not to be made
National Energy Board I suggest that anyone who selects that sentence from the context and makes it apply to me is incorrect in so doing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister and I did not quite understand each other. After he drew the matter to my attention I read the context very carefully, and I was afraid that if I changed the word "minister", having regard to the minister's observation afterwards, it would make no sense whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By that I do not mean what I said; I mean what the minister said, because the minister would have referred to the word "minister" and it would not have been there. It was for that reason that I did not make the change. But I acknowledge that I said it inadvertently. I think I admitted that in the house at the time. I think the reference I made specifically to the dim prospect of the hon. member for Assiniboia ever becoming minister made the whole thing abundantly clear.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am still no "has been". NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD



PROVISION FOR ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Churchill for the second reading of Bill No. C-49, to provide for the establishment of a national energy board, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Howard.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking last night I was asked a question by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson), and was able to give him only part of the answer. In answering his question I referred to the fact that I was only a small fish in a large pool, and that when it is my turn to speak the big fish have usually left the pool. However, I am quite certain that if the Prime Minister is interested in my remarks, he can read Hansard for himself.
We have opposed and are opposing the national energy bill that we have before us. One of the reasons we are opposing it is that it is not a national energy bill. I should like to refer not only to the Borden commission report which we have heard quoted-and that commission did a survey of the energy prospects of Canada-but also to the report of the royal commission on the economic prospects of Canada under the chairmanship of Mr. W. L. Gordon.
In his submission on Canada's economic prospects he mentions a number of other forms
4108	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board of energy. I suggest that these other forms of energy must be taken into consideration if we are going to discuss an energy bill. I find that not only does he mention some of the ones that I referred to, but he also mentions some that I did not know about because I come from an inland area and therefore they do not affect me.
He points out at page 270 of the report of the royal commission that another form of energy is tidal power. He goes on to point out that in the maritime provinces, particularly at Passamaquoddy, a tidal power project has been discussed as a method of producing energy. This particular project must be national. It has been discussed by a national commission, a joint commission of the United States and Canada and they have discussed this matter since 1920. It is pointed out that this project, while physically feasible, is not necessarily an economic method of producing power at the present time. They point out at page 271 that in a joint commission report of 1950 the international Passamaquoddy tidal power project could be feasibly engineered, constructed and operated, and they go on to point out that it would be very expensive.
Another form of energy which I mentioned was nuclear energy. They pointed out some of the problems in the development of this form of energy, and also the fact that it was an important source of energy and would become much more important. Obviously if it is going to be a source of energy then it must be brought under the national energy bill if it is going to be truly national, and also take into consideration all forms of energy.
It also goes on to point out, as I mentioned last night, that there is a form of energy known as solar energy. I quote from the report at page 272:
Solar energy holds out hopes in quite a different direction. It falls on cheap waste land just as abundantly as on built-up areas in the nation's larger cities and towns. Solar operated devices can (and indeed must) be small in size.
As I pointed out, this will be effective in our northern development. It will be a factor in developing power necessary for expansion in our far north. These are some of the things that I think must be taken in consideration in a national energy bill, but they have been completely ignored.
Again, I think this bill is only a combination of a number of other acts that have been used to regulate the export of hydroelectric power and the sale, export and transmission of gas and oil. Canada has many other forms of national energy. It has many other energy resources which should also be given consideration. Many other important reasons have been given why this bill should


not be accepted and made final for the Canadian people. For this reason alone I suggest that the amendment should be supported and this bill be given the six months' hoist.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have read and studied the bill carefully, and I have also listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by various members during this debate.
I now rise to give, as it were, a summation of this group's point of view with respect to its hopes when the resolution was introduced; its disappointment when the bill was introduced into the house, and its alternative proposals to this legislation. In a way I am really concluding the remarks of this group on second reading and explaining our reasons for considering, shall I say, the aridity of this legislation. The embryo of this bill was buried in the very general language of the resolution preceding it.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that all my life I have been a bit of an optimist, and I had hoped that a healthy legislative child would be born with the introduction of this bill. We did not expect a very lusty infant, but we did expect that it would be healthy. However, our hopes were doomed to disappointment on the introduction of the bill.
Why did we have these hopes? Why were we justified in having hopes that this legislation would to some extent be satisfactory to the members of this group? Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all because the royal commission gave its close attention to the energy problem in Canada. It was a royal commission appointed by this government which, after an expenditure of over $300,000 of public funds, made its report to the government. It was on that account that we expected this government to give effect at least to the major recommendations of this report, and so did a great many Canadians across the country.
In addition, our hopes at the resolution stage were considerably bolstered by statements made by the Prime Minister when he was a member of the opposition in 1956, as well as statements of other prominent members of the present government at that time. Then again, we thought after the discussion in 1956 and the study of the whole situation by the royal commission on energy that the government recognized the need to protect the national and consumer interests of Canada by the creation of an effective national energy board. Here we have the introduction of a bill which does not even give a definition of what energy is.
In addition, we felt justified in expecting something because of the name given to the

board, the national energy board, in the resolution preceding this bill. However, Mr. Speaker, we were sadly disappointed with the undernourished orphan which was born when the minister introduced the bill into this house, and it was because of our disappointment that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) moved this amendment which in effect would kill the bill at this time.
On the government side we have support for the bill. The Liberals have, shall I say, offered their tepid benediction to the measure in the dulcet tones of the official Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), in the cello-like resonance of the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Spencer), and the piccolo-like sweet tones of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the hon. gentleman means Essex East.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I beg the member's pardon. I meant Essex East.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I also be permitted to correct my hon. friend and say that I am the leader of the official opposition, not the official leader of the opposition.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I stand corrected. When I look at the good natured countenance of the leader of the official opposition I am rather inclined to extend his powers beyond those legally given him.
Mr. Speaker, I noticed during this debate that even the minister seemed to hang his head for the greater part of the time, and I noticed that on occasion he was peeping over at this group as much as to say, "Don't blame me entirely for this; it is not altogether mine." I could not help but think he looked like a shamefaced accoucheur in the introduction of this bill.
I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Macleod the evening before last with great interest. Apparently he speaks as a doctor of economics who has given some consideration to this measure. He has experience as a consultant in the oil and gas industry, and possibly has more understanding of the problem than a good many of his own colleagues. On that account I wish to quote a few passages from his speech which rather intrigued me and other members of this group, because if the speech is read carefully it was an expression of some doubt and concern. I now quote from page 4003 of Hansard of May 25, and this is what the hon. member said at that point:
There is one other point I should like to mention and that is that those who are charged with the responsibility of examining the contracts of the different companies should look into the question of escalator clauses in those contracts. I am told these gas exporting companies have escalator clauses in
National Energy Board
their contracts. In other words the price of gas is set at a certain level and then it goes up year after year in increments and gradually the price is increased. I have heard that these escalator clauses are based on economic trends. I would recommend to the government that they look into the question of who drew these economic trends. There is no other industry in this country that I know of that has escalator clauses in contracts relating to the things which it sets out to sell.
That is one of the reasons why this group is so concerned about an effective national energy bill. Then again the member went on, on page 4004, to say:
I believe that the economic forces should be bent in such a way that, over a long period of time, Canadian ownership will develop. Above all, we should maintain equity among the producers of gas and encourage Canadians to assume leadership in the production of gas and oil.
This is a clear admission that Canadians have not leadership in the production of gas and oil in this country at this time, and that is a situation this group is very concerned about. Then he went on to say, on the same page:
I now want to say a few words on another matter. I have been tremendously impressed by the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and of other members of the opposition and of the C.C.F.
So we have had some effect, you see, in this debate, Mr. Speaker. He continued:
They have gone to great lengths in praising the report of the Gordon royal commission which recommended the establishment of an energy board. The Gordon royal commission made the energy board their number one recommendation. You may be interested in knowing how that recommendation got into the report.
Mr. Gordon set up a system and asked for the help across Canada of scientists, economists and everyone whose services he could draw upon.
That is another reason, Mr. Speaker, why we object to this measure. The government has completely ignored the opinions and advice of this talented group of specialists in the field of the production of oil and gas, its marketing and so on. Then finally the hon. member finished his very interesting speech with these words.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member
what he is quoting?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am quoting
from Hansard of Monday, May 25.


Mr. Speaker:: From this debate?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggested last night that
it was not in order to quote at length from this debate. Hon. members have heard what has been said, and it is certainly repetitious to put the speeches on Hansard a second time. If the hon. member wishes to found an argument on something that was said, and
4110	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board quote for that purpose, well and good; but that does not open the door to long quotations from this debate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was quoting briefly from the speech of the hon. member for McLeod in order to develop my argument and give added reasons why this group is opposing this measure.


Mr. Speaker:: It is quite permissible to quote for the purpose of founding arguments, but not for the purpose of putting the speech again before the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would not dream of doing that in any circumstances. But what did the hon. member for Macleod say, as reported at page 4005? He said, "The bill before the house is the best compromise that could be reached at this time." I am quoting in order to give a reason for this party's position. That is another reason why this group is opposed to this measure, because we consider it to be an unfortunate compromise which does not meet the needs of the Canadian national interest and the Canadian consumers at this time.
I was very interested to hear the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. McFarlane) with respect to the protests of certain municipalities in his constituency against the export of gas to the United States without the service being extended to the communities in that district. I support the hon. member wholeheartedly. Here is another illustration of the need for a board with effective powers. I have in my hand a copy of the Kimberley News of Wednesday, May 13 headlined "Kootenays seek Natural Gas-Ask Government Support" and I will quote briefly from the article in order to demonstrate the circumstances and the fact that the present authorities have no power to deal with these people; and as far as we can see, under this bill the national energy board will have no greater powers than those enjoyed by the present authority set up under the Pipe Lines Act.
Murray McFarlane, member of parliament for Kootenay East, will be requested to support a brief calling for the suspension of granting a gas export permit to Alberta and Southern Natural Gas until gas supply has been assured for the Kootenays.
The executive of the association of Kootenay municipalities-
Who, incidentally, sent me this paper.
-Friday night endorsed a brief to halt the shipment of 3,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas to the U.S.
Permission had earlier been granted to the company by the Alberta conservation board.
Dr. Fraser, commissioner at Creston will prepare the brief to be submitted to the federal government.
It was pointed out in a resolution presented to the executive meeting that the company is seeking an export permit from the dominion government to export the gas to the United States.


The pipe line crosses the southeast corner of the East Kootenays from Crowsnest at the Alberta boundary to Kingsgate at the Idaho boundary.
It has been pointed out that the communities of Fernie, Cranbrook, Kimberley, Chapman Camp, Marysville and Creston are all desirous of being served by natural gas.
The only way the Kootenays could obtain the gas would be from this planned export line which is not planned to conveniently serve them.
The resolution stresses the importance of the dominion government withholding the granting of a permit until the Alberta pipe line agrees to deliver natural gas to the boundaries of the East Kootenay municipalities at a cost comparable to which it is sold to the American pipe line companies at Kingsgate.
Fernie has already appeared before the Borden commission on the matter in a separate application.
If we had effective legislation there would be no necessity for these communities to present briefs to this government and go before commissions in order to get their natural right, the right to enjoy Canadian natural resources before they are exported to the United States.
This oil and gas industry is in my opinion a breed apart when it comes to dealing with governments at all levels and with consumers. That is indicated by my own personal experience. I remember when they were starting to build a pipe line across southeastern British Columbia, and the way some of the officials of the company concerned ignored the rights of citizens, or tried to ignore them, when it came to matters such as the location of the route of pipe lines, expropriation proceedings, compensation and so on, almost past belief. In a number of cases groups of citizens were obliged to organize and send representatives to Victoria. They were obliged to take co-operative and strong action in order to protect their rights, which should have been protected by law, either federal or provincial.
Again, when it comes to employment practices, these high and mighty people did not use the facilities of the national employment service in some districts in which they were operating. The manager of one of our employment offices in my own district told me that the engineer for one of these companies had said to him, "We are not going to use your potty little national employment service. We like a line-up at the office here every morning at seven o'clock so we can go along the line every morning and say 'You, and you, and you, and the rest can come back tomorrow' ". No other group of employers in southeastern British Columbia, in my experience, has taken that attitude and shown such complete disregard for Canadian rights, sensibilities and practices.
Then we come to the question of sales to the United States at lower prices than those which are being obtained in the province

*of British Columbia and other parts of this country and, in this instance, the complete disregard shown for the requirements and the wishes of municipalities which have been established for a long period of years and whose people have made a great contribution to the wealth of this country-places such as Cranbrook or Kimberley where the famous Sullivan mine is located. Consider the enormous wealth of products which come from that area; think of the lumber industry and the coal industry in the towns along the eastern end of Crowsnest pass. The requirements of these municipalities, the requirements of industry and the requirements of Canadian consumers will be completely overlooked unless we have an effective national energy board with powers to protect their interests.
I said previously that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has moved this amendment, asking in effect for a six months' hoist for this legislation, because we believe that this bill does not give the board power to do the job it should do in order to protect the Canadian national interest and the interests of Canadian consumers. Here is a concrete illustration. This bill gives the national energy board no more authority than is exercised at the present time by the authorities who administer the Pipe Lines Act, if indeed it is to have as much. We intend to watch this situation very closely. What happens in the next few months with respect to the brief presented by the municipalities along the Crowsnest pass will determine very effectively whether the national energy board has the power to do the things which the minister says it can do.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is in connection with this discussion as to the powers the board is to have. I wonder if the hon. member has looked at section 59, subsection 2, which will, of course, be considered in committee. That indicates quite clearly that the board has the power, which the hon. member claims it does not have, to see that the facilities available are offered to people nearby.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad the minister has raised that point. Strictly he should be called to order for referring to a section, but I want to reply if I may. This group likes the word "shall" in preference to the word "may". That is why we object, because the bill says "may".
Why has there been this retreat on the part of the government from the position taken by the Prime Minister and his colleagues when
National Energy Board in opposition in 1956? They took a very strong position at that time. There must be a reason, and one must be fair. The reason is this, as far as we can see it; that this is a government which worships at the altar of free enterprise, enterprise as represented by the hon. member for Calgary West at the present time.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: Calgary South.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This government, because of its political philosophy, is caught in the squeeze between the pressure and wishes of the industry and the need to do something to protect the national interest and the interests of Canadian consumers. The result is this compromise, this ineffective bill, this undernourished legislative orphan, this achromatic child of the government's dilemma.
When we offer criticism of the bill in all fairness we must offer constructive alternative proposals and I intend to outline briefly what a C.C.F. government would do under these circumstances.


An hon. Member:: That is an extremely hypothetical question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Someone has commented that that is a hypothetical question. Only time will prove that there is more substance in my remarks than the hon. member gives credit for at this time.
What would a C.C.F. government do under the circumstances? First of all let me say there would be no conflict between the philosophy and policy of a C.C.F. government and the national and consumer interest. Therefore there would not be a necessity for compromise and rationalization in the introduction of a bill of this kind as demonstrated by the effective distribution of gas in Saskatchewan, which the hon. member for Assiniboia dealt with so ably in his reply to the remarks of the Prime Minister, who made a most unfortunate reference to Saskatchewan.
A C.C.F. government would establish a national energy board responsible to parliament and avoid the day to day interference by the governor in council made possible under this bill. We recognize from attending various committee meetings this session the serious position of the Canadian economy in respect of international trade, and the necessity to do all that is possible to effectively meet increased competition.
One of the prime requirements in effectively meeting foreign competition in trade is low cost power effectively distributed across the country. A C.C.F. government would give effect to a national policy along the following lines. The national energy board would have
4112	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board power to make recommendations to parliament with respect to public ownership that could best serve the national and public interest under various circumstances obtaining in Canada. That would be considered primarily in respect of the interprovincial transport of oil and gas. The board would be given power to protect the national consumer interest in the export of gas. It would not issue licences under which companies could sell gas in the United States at prices below those obtaining in respect of Canadian consumers.
A C.C.F. government would establish a board that would promote policies designed to conserve and direct the use of energy resources. A C.C.F. government would establish a board with power to ensure that, as far as is practicable, fuel and power resources were equitably distributed to all sections of the populated area of Canada. A C.C.F. government would establish a board with power to introduce rates and charges for the transportation of power in its various forms whether that energy was being transported under public or private ownership. A C.C.F. government would establish a board with power to co-ordinate the activities of various agencies having information that would assist in the development of energy resources whether on the federal or provincial level or in private industry.
A C.C.F. government would appoint a board with power to promote research into every field of the production, distribution and marketing of energy in Canada. A C.C.F. government would establish a board with power to work in co-operation with a dominion-provincial advisory energy council so that the activities of the board within the provincial sphere could be correlated and the rights of provincial jurisdiction would be respected. It would ensure that all activities were directed to the end of an ample supply of cheap power equitably distributed throughout Canada.
I have dealt with our hopes and disappointments, and have briefly outlined what would be the policy of a C.C.F. government if it were appointing a national energy board and introducing legislation of this type at this time. In our opinion the present bill is a legislative facade that provides the opportunity for the government to accept the credit for any small advantages that may accrue, and to place the blame for its disadvantages on the shoulders of the national energy board. It is a hollow shell, and for that reason the hon. member for Skeena has introduced his amendment which we shall support.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion. Is the house ready for the question? I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it is not my
intention to speak at any great length at this stage of the debate on second reading because I realize that the house generally is eager to get into the committee stage where the bill can be dealt with clause by clause. I appreciated the remark of the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition (Mr. Pearson) last night when he said, "We are trying to get this legislation through."
I prefer to refer to him as leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and not leader of the official opposition. He is obviously the official leader flanked by aspiring and unofficial leaders. But as leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition he has co-operated to the extent of indicating that the house in general is anxious to get this legislation through and certainly to the committee stage so that there can be careful study of the various clauses.
In the course of the debate, although it was on the general principles of the bill, as it developed the principles were at times overlooked and certain extraneous material was introduced. But just to remind the house, I think it should be clearly set out that, as far as general principles are concerned, this
National Energy Board bill is to establish a national energy board which shall, in order to assure to the people of Canada the best use of energy resources in this country, regulate in the public interest the construction and operation of oil and gas pipe lines subject to the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, the tolls charged for transmission by such pipe lines, the export and import of gas, the export of electric power and the construction of those lines over which such power is exported. The board shall also study and keep under review all matters relating to energy within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, and shall recommend to the Minister of Trade and Commerce such measures as it considers necessary or advisable in the public interest with regard to such matters. The bill also authorizes the extension of the export and import provisions to oil.
In the course of my opening remarks on second reading I set forth the principles with which we are concerned. I might say here, Mr. Speaker, that I do not intend to deal with the remarks of each hon. member who participated in the debate up to this stage. I appreciate the valuable contributions made by many of those who took part, but so many of the points raised have reference to various clauses of the bill that it would seem advisable to deal with those suggestions and criticisms as the clauses come before the committee.
However, I notice that in some of the statements made by members of the opposition there was criticism to the effect that this bill did not go far enough in that it was not concerned with all forms of energy in Canada. In my opening statement I attempted to make it quite clear that we were not interfering with the dominion coal board and that we were not attempting to take over the functions now performed so adequately by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited but that we were concerned with the question of electricity, oil and gas, the export of those forms of energy and the import of them when necessary.
In the bill we have made provision for wide advisory functions of the national energy board so that board can advise the government as to the policy that might be pursued with regard to energy and the sources of energy. The opposition stressed the point that this bill should be referred to a standing committee, a suggestion which is hard to balance against their repeated statements that there is nothing new in the bill, that it is simply a continuation of policies which they have advocated in the past and which they had placed on the statute books. In

National Energy Board view of those statements, it is hard to understand why they would now want to refer this bill to a standing committee for further study.
They have referred to the work of the Gordon commission. They have commented upon the Borden commission. From both those careful investigations of energy in Canada surely sufficient information is now in the hands of the house for it to proceed with this bill without further reference to one of the standing committees. The committee of the whole house is quite competent to deal with it.
A great deal of attention was given by some hon. members of the opposition to the alleged seizure of arbitrary powers on the part of the government. This is a strange change of attitude on the part of my hon. friends opposite. It shows that they have learned something from the debates that took place in this house in 1955 and 1956 to which they have made reference and from which they have quoted at some length. I think they have learned in part the lesson that was taught them in those days. However, it ill befits them now to suggest-as was suggested by one member of the opposition, namely the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith)-that closure was being attempted in this debate. Nothing of the sort is being attempted. The debate is wide open for any length of time that people desire. There is nothing in the nature of any seizure of arbitrary powers. Everything is disclosed in the bill. We have placed it before the house for consideration. Every aspect of it can be examined. We have no intention now -and never have had any-of wanting to do anything without the authority and consent of parliament.
They have directed their attention particularly to clause 87 which we have set in there subject to later proclamation. That is not an unusual course in connection with bills that come before this house. That course of action has been followed on many occasions in the past. It permits the house to examine the proposition, to give its consent -or withhold it, if it so desires-and then having the facts disclosed, permit the subsequent proclamation of a section or sections of the act when the time seems propitious for that to be done. There is no concealment here or no intention of taking any arbitrary powers. If it seems advisable at some subsequent date to proclaim section 87, the document which does that will be immediately tabled in the House of Commons and debate permitted with regard to that action.


Mr. Mcllraith:: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question just on that point?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


George James McIlraith: How would debate on that document to proclaim be permitted? Under what procedure?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has been done before, Mr. Speaker. It would be open to the house at the time that document was tabled or subsequently, on recognition of the place in the program for a debate of that nature, to debate it. It has frequently happened that the government of the day has agreed to the debate of a subject on the request of the opposition. We are suggesting that can be done under these circumstances.


George James McIlraith: Like the immigration order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hon. members of the C.C.F.
party made a lengthy, if somewhat raucous, contribution to the debate and ranged extremely far afield. I am surprised to find them aligned in opposition to national development and to the establishment of a national energy board.
In the debate which took place in this chamber in February of 1957, and which has been referred to frequently by hon. members opposite, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), who was then leader of the opposition, introduced a resolution advocating national development and in the course of his speech proposed the setting up of a national energy board, the C.C.F. party of that day, under its then leader, supported that resolution and supported the idea of national development and found no objection to the setting up of a national energy board.
But the present surviving members of what was once a strong party of this house have taken a stand against national development and against a national energy board. On the one hand they have advocated nationalization of pipe lines, public ownership, and on the other hand they have suggested that if there is to be a national energy board it should have complete powers without any responsibility to parliament, a misunderstanding surely of the function of parliament and how the executive is responsible to parliament. As I followed their argument through its devious course, it appeared to me that they were advocating some body which would be completely independent of this parliament. That is not the type of body that we are setting up. We are setting up a body which is responsible to the government, which in turn is responsible to parliament. Every action of that board and every action of the government is subject to question and review.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is just a pawn of the cabinet.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. group, who speaks not in the measured tones of his distinguished predecessor of a few years ago, says it will be a pawn of the cabinet. That is not true. Like any other body set up by parliament it will report to the cabinet and it will report through the Minister of Trade and Commerce to parliament, and every action taken will be reviewed. I do not see the purpose that is attempted to be served by the C.C.F. party in the attitude which they have taken with regard to this bill. The wisdom of the house is of course against them on the two motions we have had before this house. The house has voted them down and has pressed on with the consideration of this particular problem.
We are prepared, Mr. Speaker, in the committee stage to examine very closely all angles of what I have earlier said is a very complicated problem. There is no pretense that this question of dealing with energy and the sources of energy in Canada is not complicated. It ranges far afield and involves not only matters within our own country and the conservation of our resources but our export policy, our relations with our neighbour the United States, and all sorts of difficulties which arise in dealing with oil and gas in particular.
In conversations with members of the federal power commission in the United States which have been conducted over the years by officials of the department, a great deal of advice and information has been received as to the difficulties which confront boards charged with responsibility such as we are proposing to give to the national energy board. We appreciate the difficulties that are ahead, and it is for that reason that so much of this bill has been drawn in general rather than specific terms, so that the national energy board comprised, as we expect it will be, of men of experience and ability will, in the general framework which will be set out, be able to map out a policy which will be in the general interest of all Canadians. Experience over the course of the next 12 months will guide us in the future, but this is a step in the right direction. This, as I said on the introduction of the resolution, is the fulfilment of a policy pursued by this party over many years.
As the Prime Minister mentioned, the suggestion of a national energy board to deal with Canada's national development was proposed by the late Gordon Graydon many years ago, and subsequently that idea was carried forward year after year through debates in this house sponsored by the Conservative party. The setting up of the national energy board at this stage is part of
Division
the fulfilment of our desire to develop the resources of Canada in the interests of all Canadians, and we are confident that through the bill which is now before the house, and subsequently through the board which will be set up, the interests of Canadians will be protected, that our resources will be adequately developed, and Canada will continue to maintain her position as one of the leading nations of the world.
The bill which is before the house setting up a national energy board I am sure will meet with general approval throughout this country. We have already had indication that there is general approval for action of this nature which is in line with the policy of national development announced by this party and now being followed through on many fronts. No front is of greater importance to the Canadian people than that which relates to energy, and the national energy board will fulfil the purpose that we have had in mind over the years.


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


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacEwan in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, it was pointed out that this group believes that this bill is 
not properly referred to in the first clause. A national energy board should be empowered to deal with energy in all forms whereas this bill establishes a national energy board in respect of the regulation of gas and oil only. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins:
That clause 1 be amended by deleting the word "Energy" and substituting the words "Gas and Oil Regulatory".


The Acting Chairman (Mr. MacEwan):: Is
the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 6; nays, 108.


Howard Russell MacEwan: declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
George James McIlraith: There are so many subparagraphs to this clause that I wonder whether it is the intention of the minister to deal with them as one clause or one by one? I have some remarks on several parts of the clause. It would be more orderly if they were dealt with one by one.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is immaterial to me. If the Chairman would call them alphabetically it would be all right.
Subclauses (a) and (b) agreed to.
On subclause (3)-Company.


George James McIlraith: Can the minister make clear the origin of this definition of "company" and explain the difference in the definition from that contained in the previous legislation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, in the Pipe Lines Act "company" is defined in section 2, subclause (b) as follows:
"Company" means a person having authority under a special act to construct or operate pipe lines for the transportation of oil or gas.
There is no change there except that we said, "To construct or operate pipe lines".


George James McIlraith: The point I want to make is that it appears that by adopting the definition contained in this subclause the minister is striking out any differentiation between company pipe lines and other pipe lines. Can he develop that, or explain why it has been done?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no intention to
make that distinction. In the Pipe Lines Act, chapter 211 of the Revised Statutes of Canada a company pipe line was defined. We dropped that and here we define a company and later we define a pipe line.


George James McIlraith: What I am seeking to point out is that there is a difference in the definition here from the former legislation. There was a difference between a company pipe line and a pipe line. That distinction seems to have been dropped. I am not arguing that it should or should not be dropped. I would like the minister to tell the committee why this distinction has been dropped. What is the effect of it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps I did not make it clear. It was a separation of the definition. The company pipe line in the Pipe Lines Act was explained rather fully, and what we have done is to split the thing, to define "company" as I read it out just a minute or two ago and then to define "pipe line" on page 2, incorporating the relevant phrases that occur in the Pipe Lines Act. It seemed to us to make it clearer to drop the expression "company pipe line".


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the Pipe Lines Act contains a definition of the word "company", then a definition of "company pipe line" and then a definition of "pipe line". The effect of that was to have two classes of pipe lines, the company pipe line and then the other pipe lines that were included in the definition "pipe line" and which were not company pipe lines. That distinction has been dropped. There must be some reason for it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think we have it clarified by the present definition, Mr. Chairman. The explanation that has been put forward is that under the old act a pipe line could include things other than the movement of oil or gas. It might be for the movement of water or salines, liquids, and things of that nature.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, before you proceed to pass the definition of "company", may I say I read this to mean that it includes a crown corporation, if one were established to operate a pipe line. Is that so?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That appears to be correct.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, not only that but it excludes other companies that may be operating pipe lines because of the fact they were operating much earlier than the enactment of the Pipe Lines Act.


Mr. Godin:: Can the minister explain how under this act a company can mean a person? No permits will be granted to companies. It would seem to me that one person is singled out in this subclause, which is definitely not the intention.
National Energy Board


Gordon Minto Churchill: In the Interpretation Act a person includes a company. This is just a reprint from the Pipe Lines Act.


George James McIlraith: No, it is not a reprint. It omits part of the definition in the Pipe Lines Act. It is not a reprint; it is a reprint of part of it.


Osias.-J. Godin: Can the minister explain to the committee why a company would not include a corporation, and so on, which would have a licence under the legislation which we are about to pass for the Canadian people concerning the administration of energy in Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether the hon. member would repeat that question? I missed part of it.


Osias.-J. Godin: The clause as it now stands
is not in conformity with the previous act from which apparently it comes by way of the scissors and paste method. The bill simply states that "company" means a person having authority under a special act to construct or operate pipe lines. Why should it no be more specific and indicate what bodies or entities may be considered as companies to whom we may grant permits, further extend permits, refuse permits and so on?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought that the explanation of that was in what I said earlier about the Interpretation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
On subclause (d)-Export.
George James McIlraith: Will the minister explain the origin of this definition?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is the definition in the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act in so far as power is concerned and, quoting from that act, the definition of "export" is as follows:
"Export" means
(i) with reference to power, to send from Canada by a line of wire or other conductor.
That portion of the definition in the bill comes from the Exportation of Power and Fluids and the Importation of Gas Act.


George James McIlraith: I am concerned with the second part of subclause (d). I take it that is new. Is that correct?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is new because of the use of the word "hydrocarbons" instead of the word "fluids".


George James McIlraith: What I want to get some explanation of is this. Under the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas
4118	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board Act the term "export" was defined, and the definition in so far as power is concerned is the same in the bill as in that act, but with reference to fluids the definition of the word "export" is wholly changed. The definition in the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act dealing with fluids reads as follows:
"Export" means-
(ii) with reference to fluids, to send from Canada through pipe lines or other like contrivances.
In other words, there are two limitations there. The export of oil under these regulations was confined to the export of oil through pipe lines, and that is the only oil under control under that act. That was the point I sought to make with respect to the Prime Minister's remarks on second reading. When he addressed the house he dealt with this subject but he did not make any reference to the limitation contained in that act and, indeed, in remarks he made during the course of the debate yesterday the Minister of Public Works was guilty of the same omission.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that there is no export by any other means than pipe lines?


George James McIlraith: I am seeking to clear up what might very well be a misleading impression created by the Minister of Public Works when he stated, if I remember correctly, that there had been the right to control exports since 1907. I sought to point out by way of interjection, which, of course, is a poor way to do it, that control was limited to export through pipe lines. In other words, it was an attempt to control pipe lines and, indeed, it came into force in 1907 at a time when there was no question of export. The problem of finding markets for oil simply did not exist then. That was the point I wanted to make.
I thought that the minister should clear up the matter here because otherwise it could be very misleading.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In recent years the pipe line method of moving oil has been almost universally accepted, and as far as Canada is concerned that is the way it is moving instead of by tank car or truck. There can be export by these other means and we have made allowance for that but normally export is by pipe line.


George James McIlraith: The point I wish to make is that export by pipe line, of course, obviously refers only to export to the United States and by means of that one method only. The bill is sharply different. Contrary to the argument made by the Prime Minister and implied by the Minister of Public Works, the export control now sought by the minister is sharply different in that it involves export 

by any means. That is the whole crux of the argument. I do not see why that is not admitted and put forward in that way by the government. I do not see why there should be an attempt to be confusing with respect to it.
It is quite clear that any control or regulation with regard to the export of oil was limited by that definition to export through pipe lines which means export to the United States by one method only and that there was not control of export by tanker or any other method which would imply, of course, export to other countries and which could become important now that this country is in the fortunate position that the oil industry has developed. There is a big problem to be faced in finding markets. It is a wholly different problem and I think the minister should clear up this matter.


Howard Charles Green: I think the hon. member for Ottawa West misunderstood the exchange between the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate and myself. He was complaining about the government taking arbitrary powers and so on and so forth and I asked him if he was not aware that since 1907 there had been control over the export of oil. That was the basis of the question and it was asked because he was criticizing us for taking control over the export of oil. Then he admitted that the former government had this control, and in effect they had control over all export of oil because oil was only exported by pipe line.


George James McIlraith: I do not think I can let the
minister get away with that argument because in fact there was only authority to control it through pipe lines and if there was any other practical method of shipping oil to any other country by any other means it was not under control. In other words, what was sought to be controlled in 1907 was the subject of pipe lines, not the subject of the export of oil. Our problem today is quite different. We are seeking to find markets for oil. I think the minister will agree that at that time the problem arose because of the necessity for control of the export of electricity. That is the point I want to make.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, under this subclause the definition of "export" so far as hydrocarbons are concerned is unlimited, in other words, "to send from Canada by any means" but in a subsequent subclause, subclause (g) which deals with imports, the definition of "import" in its application to gas and oil is limited to specified methods of importing. Would the minister explain why this distinction was made with regard to the definitons of "export" and "import"?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. The definition has been spelled out when we are dealing with imports in subsection (g). There the idea was that if a license procedure had to be adopted for imports of oil, it would not apply to small quantities which might come in by other means than those there specified. Under the question of export and sale by any means, it was not spelled out in the same way in view of the fact that, if the control of the export of oil was under consideration, there might be substantial exports by other means -or it would include gas-not foreseen at the present time which perhaps should come under control.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then paragraph (d) which deals with export means that if oil were brought in by air freight it would not be subject to control because it would not be imported.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not sure that the definition would apply there. There may be other methods unknown to us by which these things could be transported.


George James McIlraith: There is another point to be made clear with reference to export, namely that the government is seeking a sharp widening of any control there may have been in the past on two grounds. Formerly it was obvious that export control could only apply to the United States because it was through a pipe line. That is the first ground. The other is as to quantity. If by any chance they make export control regulations applicable by the act under the later section, then they are going to be controlling any quantities of oil to any country in the world. I am wondering just how far this matter has been thought through by the government and to what extent they intended so sharply to extend the export control as they are doing through this method of definition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I might point out that sections 82 and 83 give a certain amount of leeway here for exemptions and these exemptions could be applied in the case of small quantities or quantities that were not of any great importance. Section 85, subsection 2 indicates another exemption regulation.


George James McIlraith: That has to do with the regulations. The government is taking extremely wide power here and is asking for much wider power than was indicated in any of the speeches made on the second reading of this bill. It is quite true that they may say, "Maybe we will not take as wide power as we are asking for", but it is not in the act. Parliament has not passed on that matter at all. Parliament had the
National Energy Board limitation in the earlier legislation; it does not have it at all in this legislation. Parliament had imposed its limitation in the earlier legislation; in this case parliament is asked to remove all limitations on the subject. That is the point I wish to make.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Chairman, as to the reference made by the minister to section 82 may I say this. Does not the word "exportation" in section 82 (a) refer to the definition in clause 2 (d) and therefore are we not back to the same problem?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was drawing attention to subsection 2 of section 82 which reads:
(2) A licence issued under this part may be restricted or limited as to area, quantity or time or as to class or kind of products.


Osias.-J. Godin: Surely the minister is not expecting the board more or less to over-ride the cabinet and parliament as to what they will decide in the very elementary problem of what under this act it is meant for them to govern.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nothing of the sort.


Osias.-J. Godin: We do not find in the definition anything as to the responsibilities of the board. The minister refers the house to paragraph 2 of clause 82 and states that there they have more or less vague and unlimited powers to deal with areas and modes of transportation and that they will have in their own fashion the right to distinguish as to what is meant in the extremely important matter of this act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What I was objecting to in the hon. members' statement was this. I think he said something to the effect that the board would act without reference to parliament. If he will read section 82 again, he will notice it states "Subject to the regulations", and the regulations have to be approved, as will be seen by reference to section 85. In all instances these regulations will have to be approved by the governor in council. Hence the board is not simply given a free hand. Their authority would be spelled out in the regulations.


Osias.-J. Godin: Is the minister indicating to the house that in the final analysis it is for the cabinet and the governor in council to decide all matters under this act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not know. If the hon. member wants to interpret it in that way it is within his rights as a matter of this house to do so; but it is not the interpretation that we put on it. Even in those acts which we are now supplanting by this one, regulations were passed spelling out some of the

National Energy Board sections of those acts and giving instructions as to what should be done with regard to licences, fees, export, import and so on.


George James McIlraith: There is one other point I wish to refer in connection with clause 2 (d). I refer to the definition in (d) (ii) "with reference to hydrocarbons, to send from Canada by any means". I have dealt with the point "by any means" being an enlargement over the former provision "by pipe line". As to hydrocarbons-we shall come to that matter separately-the terms has reference to oil and gas. The former act had to do with fluids and the definition of fluids included gas, oil, water or any other fluids and so on, exported by way of pipe line. I want to ask the minister just what other fluids, if any, are exported from Canada by pipe line, whether water or otherwise. Second, I should like to ask this question. If any water is exported from Canada, a matter which was regulated under the former legislation, what provision is made for the regulation of it now? Is it being dropped from all regulations? If so, why? The point turns on the definition of the word "fluids" in the former legislation and its omission in this legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In the old act having water in there meant that licences had to be issued for saline solutions and woodpulp in aqueous suspension. These are not going to be required under this act.


George James McIlraith: Will they be regulated under any other federal regulations or legislation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is derived from the definition of fluids under the act, a saline solution and wood pulp in aqueous suspension.


George James McIlraith: As I understand it, that legislation is repealed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


George James McIlraith: Then does that mean there will be no regulatory control over such export at all?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not under this, because they were not sources of energy and therefore are not included here.


George James McIlraith: But as I understand it, that act is repealed by the new one.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It will be.


George James McIlraith: The whole of that act is being repealed by the bill now before us?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


George James McIlraith: I would like to find out from the minister if it is the intention of the government that such saline and wood pulp solution as now being exported by means of pipe line and under regulatory control will cease to be under regulatory control?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If that control is now being exercised it will cease when the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act is repealed, and it is not our intention to impose any regulatory control.


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
On subclause (e)-Gas.
George James McIlraith: Subclause (e) is a new definition altogether. Would the minister give an explanation of that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, that is a new definition. It brings in temperature of 60 degrees fahrenheit and pressure. The definition of gas refers to laboratory conditions and has nothing to do with the temperatures or pressures at which such hydrocarbons are normally carried or transmitted in commerce. The principal reason for such a definition, apart from convenience and the fact that gas and oil must be separated in some way, is that it was considered desirable to control the import of propane and butane into Canada, and to do this they must be classified as gases since the bill provides for the immediate licensing of gas imports but only for the contingent licensing of oil imports. Propane and butane are normally transmitted in liquid form, but under conditions of normal temperatures and pressures are gaseous and must fall under the regulations.


George James McIlraith: Then I take it that the definition of gas would include propane and butane as presently transported; is that the intention?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


George James McIlraith: One other question, and I am not sure whether this comes under the definition of gas or hydrocarbon. Perhaps I could leave it until we get to hydrocarbon.


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
On subclause (f)-Hydrocarbon.
George James McIlraith: I have two points on this. There was a pipe line company incorporated this session, but unfortunately I have forgotten the name of it at the moment. It had to do with a proposition to export certain material, if I may call it that for the moment. I think the minister will be familiar with the company I am referring to. Does the product proposed to be put through that pipe line come within the definition of either hydrocarbon or gas as defined in this legislation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The answer to the hon. member's question is that it is not included in this definition.


George James McIlraith: That is, it is not included in either the definition of gas or oil, and therefore it would not come under this legislation at all; is that right?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, not at this stage. Subsequently, when we reach a clause further on in the bill I will draw attention to this and we will bring to the attention of the committee that that type of operation would come under a portion of this legislation.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I can let it go. Am I to understand from that that it is not the intention of the government that such international pipe lines should be freed from control?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There will be a minimum of control with regard to that type of pipe line which is not carrying an energy or a source of energy. At the same time we do not want to exclude from some of the provisions of this bill certain advantages which might come to a pipe line of that sort if it came under this legislation.


George James McIlraith: What I want to draw to the attention of the minister at this point is that such a pipe line is in the minds of the public, at least in areas of Canada where there are no big producers of oil, in exactly the same situation as an oil or gas pipe line with all the implications that that has with respect to the public financing of the company, and so on. I am just wondering as to the wisdom of the government freeing such an operation from control, with the careful type of hearing which is giving the public protection. I refer to the type of hearing that the board of transport commissioners has been giving to these cases, and which, I presume the new board will also give to these cases. It seems to me it is an innovation which should at least have been mentioned on second reading.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is referring to the Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd., is he not?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Which has been incorporated under Bill No. S-16 of the Senate of Canada. I judge that full opportunity was provided to obtain all the information which was being required with regard to the matters he has indicated in connection with the incorporation of a company of this nature.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, my concern did not have to do with the incorporation of the company at all. My concern had to do with the fact that by the definitions we are now adopting as to gas and hydrocarbon in relation to this present bill now before us we are exempting from the type of control which formerly existed under the Pipe Lines Act
National Energy Board certain proposed very large international pipe lines dealing with the export of one of the oil industry by-products from western Canada. The implication of that is pretty serious because the whole concept at the time the Pipe Lines Act was enacted, and I think as is the intention with this bill, was to control those large interprovincial and international pipe lines. There was inherent in that legislation, as there is in this, a certain measure of protection in that the applicants had to come before a board-in the former case the board of transport commissioners, and in this case the national energy board-and give a great deal of information as to the economic soundness of their proposed operation. There is a long list of criteria which they have to prove before those boards, and as well as proving economic soundness in the sense of having a sufficient supply of the product to put through the line, and a sufficient market for it there was the requirement of this board for full information about the proposed method of financing so that anyone really concerned could find out exactly what the method of financing a line was to be-how much was to be debentured and bond debt, and how much was to consist of other types of capital; what the equity capital was and so on.
By taking such pipe lines outside the operation of the act we are really being asked to embark on a wholly new policy. I am wondering whether the government has considered this point and if it is really what the government intends. If this is the intention of the government, then nothing was said either on the resolution stage or on second reading which would indicate that this was the case. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister and the minister himself speaking on second reading both indicated that they were seeking to control all the energy sources. I think the subject is of sufficient importance to warrant a clear statement from the minister and, if I may take the liberty of making the suggestion to him, perhaps he would indicate the clause of the bill where there is any authority of the kind he suggests. We might then discuss the subject better when we come to that clause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When we come to clause 62 I will make an explanation with regard to this subject. But dealing with the hon. member's first point, may I say that we are dealing here with sources of energy. That is why we have limited this to gas, oil and electricity. The hon. member is quite right in saying that we have not in this legislation continued a form of control, or intended to do so, over other types of pipe lines. I am not sure whether the hon. member is advocating that control should be extended to pipe lines

National Energy Board dealing with materials which are not sources of energy or energy in themselves.
I grant that there have been developments in pipe line construction. There are experiments going on in the United States where other materials are being carried by pipe lines, notably coal and wood chips, and it may well be that other materials may in course of time be carried great distances on the North American continent by pipe lines. But we have not reached that stage in Canada yet, and we are not suggesting control of pipe lines presently under construction or earlier constructed other than matters dealing with energy and sources of energy-gas, oil and the power lines for electricity.


George James McIlraith: I do not know if the minister's explanation is sufficiently precise. A water pipe line is, of course, a pipe line dealing with a source of energy. I do not think it is good enough to leave the subject in this way. There is provision now for the control of such pipe lines and, increasingly, this is becoming a method of transporting water. The method has grown in use in the last few years since it has become so much easier to obtain pipes of large diameter and to construct large sized pipe lines. I think the minister might give some consideration over the dinner hour as to whether or not he should clarify the subject a little further. What he has done is to cut down the control over large pipe lines, interprovincial and international, and to eliminate several classes of pipe lines from control. There was no indication of this being done either on the resolution stage or during second reading and I think the committee should be given precise information on this point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would be interested if the hon. member could give me instances of these pipe lines which he mentions. I made mention of two which are excepted under this legislation-saline solution was one, and the other was wood pulp in aqueous suspension. What other pipe lines has the hon. gentleman in mind? I do not know that my explanation could be clearer. We are not exercising control over pipe lines which are not carrying sources of energy.


George James McIlraith: You have excepted water.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Can the hon. member give me an instance of a water pipe line which is used for crossing an international boundary in order to develop energy?


George James McIlraith: No, I cannot at the moment but I think I am entitled to get that information from the minister because he is the one submitting this legislation for repeal.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have no knowledge of any such pipe lines crossing an international boundary and no knowledge of any prospect of such pipe lines being constructed for the purpose of developing energy.


George James McIlraith: If the minister means to tell me, when he says he has no knowledge, that he has checked the point and found out that there are none being licensed through his department I am satisfied, but if he has not-


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has been checked through the department and my officials assure me that my statement is correct.


Mr. Robichaud:: Can the minister tell the committee whether the transport of wood pulp in aqueous state through pipe lines is at present governed by these regulations or whether any other regulations now cover such exports?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It will not come under this legislation.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It will be under this legislation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will it be covered by any legislation at all?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It may be, under provincial authority.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: An international boundary? I have an example from Edmunston where there is a pipe line carrying pulp in bulk into Maine. Under what regulation is this export allowed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We may be at cross purposes. Is the hon. member suggesting that we should control that type of operation? I did not see that there was any purpose in maintaining whatever control there may have been in the past.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I was asking the minister if such operations would be under control.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The answer is: no.


George James McIlraith: On a new point altogether, the definition in the Pipe Lines Act is quite different with respect to oil and gas. It is quite broad. The new definition of hydrocarbon reads:
"Hydrocarbon" means any chemical compound composed exclusively of carbon and hydrogen.
The point I am making deals with the use of this word "exclusively". It seems to me that that is indeed a very narrow limitation to put on crude oil and oil in certain other states of processing. I wonder if the minister could give us an explanation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am just wondering whether the word "substantially" might have been clearer than the word "exclusively" because this is not intended to rule out impurities.


George James McIlraith: I am wondering about the definition. Unless there is some explanation it seems to me that it rules out a great many of the crude oils in Canada and I am sure that was not the intention. For instance, there are some areas where there is a very high sulphur content in the chemical compound. This would rule it out if there were any sulphur content at all. Would the minister agree to let the clause stand until we come to the end and then deal with it again? I believe it is something that should be looked at again.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you. We shall have a look at it and see if it cannot be modified.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Does the committee agree that subclause (f) stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subclause stands.
On subclause (g)-Import.


Mr. Dumas:: The first part of this subclause seems to be the same as found in the definition in the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of the Gas Act but part 2 of the subclause seems to be entirely new. It reads:
(ii) with reference to oil, to bring oil into Canada through pipe lines, by railway tank car, by tank truck or by tanker;
This does not appear to cover the question of oil transported by aircraft, by barges or in oil drums. The amount transported by aircraft I should think would be very small but transportation by barges or in oil drums may be considerable. Would it be possible to make a small amendment to include the words "by any other means"?


George James McIlraith: That is too wide, is it not? That would include manufactured products transported by truck.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member has
pointed out the difficulty one experiences in trying to spell out these questions. Another suggestion would be to amend part 2 of the subclause to read:
(ii) with reference to oil, to bring oil into Canada-
Let it stop there. That inferentially would include "by any other means", would it not?


Armand Dumas: Perhaps the minister would agree to having the clause stand for the time being. I appreciate the difficulty involved in these matters. "By any other means," may be too wide.


George James McIlraith: The minister cannot use that language because he then would be regulating
66968-9-262
National Energy Board the control of all penetrating oils in cans, lighter fluids and other things with which I am sure it was not the intention to deal in drafting the definition of "import".
My objection to the subject of the control of the import of oil still stands but I think it could be more appropriately dealt with under the clause dealing with imports rather than under the definition clause. I do not want this committee to conclude that in letting the definition of the word "imports" go by I am in any way weakening the position I have taken on the subject of the control being asked for by the minister over the importation of oil without the minister having given us an explanation as to why there should be control of the import of oil at this time. I want to make that perfectly clear.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, we would like to reserve our right to discuss any question relating to oil under clause 87 when it is reached, even if the present subclause under discussion is passed later.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is quite all right. I appreciate the interest of hon. members in this definition clause because it is important to get it right. On the other hand with regard to these interpretation clauses we will be dependent upon experience as the board operates over the year. There may be other changes that will come forward not only now but in subsequent months. Unless the hon. member for Villeneuve wants to press the point, perhaps we could pass subclause (g) at this stage.


George James McIlraith: We will have to let the clause stand until eight o'clock in any event.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Does the committee consent to allow subclause (g) to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subclause stands.
Subclauses (h) to (k) inclusive agreed to.
On subject subclause (1)-"Oil."


George James McIlraith: Perhaps we could let this stand for the time being. I think it could carry depending upon what is done with (m). Could it stand over without discussion for the moment?
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. MacEwan): Does the committee agree to let subclause (1) stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subclause stands.

National Energy Board
On subclause (m)-"Pipe line."


George James McIlraith: At this point may I ask for a fuller explanation for the reason for dropping the distinction between "pipe line" and "company pipe line"?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It may be that we will get
the law officer here who drafted the bill to explain this to the satisfaction of hon. members opposite. When we were going over this earlier we had not anticipated this particular problem. Although it may appear clear to us nevertheless we could perhaps have a fuller explanation when the law officer is present after eight o'clock.


George James McIlraith: There are one or two possible explanations I can think of but I do not believe there is any point in putting them on the record. There was a clear distinction under the Pipe Lines Act and now there is an elimination of this distinction. From a careful reading of the bill I am not fully clear as to the government's reason for eliminating that distinction. It is clear why the distinction existed originally but it is not clear as to why it was eliminated. Perhaps we could let it stand.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Does the committee agree to stand this subclause?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subclause stands.
Subclauses (n) and (o) agreed to.
On subclause (p)-Secretary.


George James McIlraith: I notice it is intended to appoint the secretary by the governor in council rather than through the commission. Is there any reason for that? Frequently, the members of the board are appointed by the governor in council but I notice in this case the secretary is appointed by the governor in council.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether that question could be held over until we reach clause 8 (1), which deals with the appointment of the secretary, rather than discuss it on the interpretation section?


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
On subclause (q)-Special Act.
Mr. Drysdale:: The interpretation section of the Pipe Lines Act states:
In this act and in any special act-
And then it proceeds to incorporate those definitions into the special act. I am wondering by what means those definitions are incorporated in the special act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not recognize a difference from the earlier act which reads:
IThe Acting Chairman (Mr. MacEwan).]
"Special act" means an act of the parliament of Canada that authorizes a person named in the act to construct or operate pipe lines-
And so on.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: It states: "In this act", then it proceeds to go on with various definitions. In the Pipe Lines Act we find this:
In this act and in any special act.
The following definitions shall have this meaning. Clause 80 of the bill we are discussing defines "special act", and it states that the special act shall be taken to override the provisions of this legislation. What I was wondering was whether any provision had been made to have those definitions the same as the ones used in the special act; in other words, the same words have the same meaning as in the special act. As I read it, there is no provision for the special act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In order to get a satisfactory answer for my hon. friend I think we shall have to get the draftsmen here to explain that because again there is some special meaning that has to be drawn from this clause.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The reason I raise it, Mr. Chairman, is that in the Pipe Lines Act they went so far as to say in section 2:
Unless it is otherwise provided, words and phrases in this act or in a special act have the same meaning as in the Railway Act.
Apparently there is nothing to cover the special words used in the special act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is intended here is an addition of what my hon. friend was asking for, following subclause (q), an addition which would repeat subsection 2 of the interpretation section of the oil and gas Pipe Lines Act. It would not alter anything that is now written in lines 24 to 30; it would be an addition to those. We shall be reverting to the interpretation section after the supper adjournment and I shall have an answer for the hon. member then.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Shall subclause (q) carry?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Subclause (q) stands.
On subclause (r)-Toll.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, is there any change in this new definition? Is it the same as the definition in the Pipe Lines Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The change is hydrocarbons for oil and gas.


George James McIlraith: There is another change.


Armand Dumas: I thought the word "transportation" appeared before. It has been deleted and replaced.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, and the word "rate" appears. It reads: "Toll, rate". In the old act the word "transportation" appeared. It has been deleted and replaced by the word "transmission".


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, in view of the practice in this industry of referring to the transmission of gas and the transportation of oil and the provision existing in many of the regulations on the subject and in some of the judgments of the board of transport commissioners having to do with the transportation of oil through pipe lines, I wonder why this change was made in the use of the word transportation and its replacement by the word "transmission" as applied to oil?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was considered that it was a more exact use of the English language to use the word "transmission" when the reference to toll is to a pipe line and the oil is transmitted through a pipe line rather than transported.


George James McIlraith: I would point out to the minister-I hope he will not misunderstand me-that I just question the latter part of his explanation. I think he will find in many of the reasons for judgments in the pipe line cases that the reference is to the transportation of oil. The word "transmission" was always used in putting gas through a pipe line, the transmission of gas through pipe lines, but transportation of oil by pipe lme is the phrase that was used. The word transportation" was used in that connotation. By the complete elimination of the word "transportation" this change is going to mean that those judgments, when read by persons who are not familiar with the history of the change, will have a different meaning altogether. This is the possible consequence of it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If any misunderstanding should arise in that connection I see no objection to putting the word "transportation" back into the definition. The word "transmission" could be there as well.


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether the minister would take it up with his own departmental law officers? There is something there that should be looked at.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All right.
Subclause (r) stands.


George James McIlraith: Before we leave this subclause I want to ask the minister why there is no definition of "energy" here? Perhaps I
66968-9-262J
National Energy Board should point out what the weakness is in not having a definition of energy in clause 2, in relation to later portions of the bill which charge the board with certain duties to study and keep under review the subject of energy. Energy covers a wide field including such things as the burning of wood, the burning of alcohol and the burning of waste chemicals. You can go far afield. Sawmills are run by the burning of sawdust. The sources of energy are very wide indeed in the industrial life of Canada. Later in the bill the board is charged with very heavy responsibilities and duties concerning the subject of energy but the word "energy" has not been defined. I respectfully suggest to the minister that this can lead into all sorts of unforseen difficulties.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Shall clause 3 carry?


Armand Dumas: No, Mr. Chairman, we are on clause 2.


George James McIlraith: Is the minister going to deal with the point I raised about a definition of energy?


Gordon Minto Churchill: As a matter of fact, I was looking at the clock opposite me which shows it is after six o'clock and I thought the reply might well be given after the supper hour.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Before we adjourn, I wonder whether the minister would consider over the supper hour if there is any particular reason for omitting the definition of "lands" which was included in the Pipe Lines Act?


George James McIlraith: That is the next point I was coming to.
The Acling Chairman (Mr. MacEwan):
Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
The Acling Chairman (Mr. MacEwan):
Order. It is five minutes to six according to the Clerk's watch. Shall clause 3 carry?


George James McIlraith: No. We are on clause 2. We are still discussing clause 2.


Armand Dumas: We did not carry clause 2.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, two of the three clocks show that it is after six o'clock so we have a majority.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acling Chairman (Mr. MacEwan): The
house in committee of the whole on Bill No.
412S
[Stage Direction]
National Energy Board C-49, an act to provide for the establishment of a national energy board. Is it the wish of the committee to revert to subclause
(f)	of clause 2?
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On subclause (f)-"Hydrocarbon".


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was a question concerning this subclause as to the need for the expression "exclusively" and whether or not "substantially" might be substituted therefor. However, on consultation with the people who have knowledge of chemical compound, I am informed that "substantially" would change the meaning very much and that you might have a chemical compound composed substantially of carbon and hydrogen and which might have sugar and alcohol as part of it. The word "exclusively" makes sure that it shall be of carbon and hydrogen and that the impurities which might occur with the hydrocarbon are not part chemically of the compound. Consequently the word "exclusively" is required in that subsection.


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
On subclause (g)-"Import".
Gordon Minto Churchill: With reference to subclause
(g)	, there was a suggestion that in the second part of it, where we speak of pipe lines, railway tank car, tank truck or tanker, there might be other means of bringing oil into Canada. The example that was given was that of drums of oil transported by barge. It does not seem to be essential that that should be included because it is an uneconomic way of transporting oil nowadays.


Armand Dumas: Do I understand the minister to say that there is no objection, that oil can be transported by barges?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We thought it would not be necessary to place a control on oil that comes in in drums on these barges.


Armand Dumas: For what reason?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is an unusual method of bringing it in and an uneconomical method when pipe lines are available.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In other words, if that were done it would not come under this regulation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


George James McIlraith: Is that as to oil brought in by barge in bulk form? A barge is not a tanker. They are in use now and of course are not included in the definition.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Shall subclause (g) carry?
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. MacEwan).]


George James McIlraith: Before it carries I should like to know whether that is the minister's answer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes; not to bring it under control. We do not see the necessity for it.


George James McIlraith: I am somewhat curious. What is the reason for that? If you put it into a tanker with power in it to drive the tanker, it is under control. If you put it in a barge behind separate motor power, it is not under control. If the minister is satisfied with it, I am.


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
On subclause (1)-"Oil".
Hédard-J. Robichaud: The minister was supposed to give us an explanation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Subclause (1) was dependent on the explanation with regard to subclause (f) and I have dealt with that subclause.


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
On subclause (m)-"Pipe Line".
Gordon Minto Churchill: There was some discussion here with regard to dropping the expression "company pipe line" and using for that expression just the phrase "pipe line". In the oil and gas Pipe Lines Act the words "company pipe line" were used. We find that "pipe line" is sufficient. Referring to the pipe lines connecting a province with any other or extending beyond the limits of the province where it has been necessary to use the other expression "line" as you might find in section 76 (1), subclause (b), we simply use the expression "line for the transmission of hydrocarbons or power". It is merely a simplification and the use of fewer words to give the same meaning.


George James McIlraith: In the Pipe Lines Act there was a real distinction between the company pipe lines and pipe lines other than company pipe lines. It was defined in that way for a purpose in that act. Is the minister indicating that the new legislation no longer requires a distinction? Is that his point?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. That is the intention.


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
On subclause (q)-"Special Act".
John Andrew W. Drysdale: I believe the minister had an explanation of this section.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The question was raised here as to the addition of subsection 2 of section 2 of the Pipe Lines Act which reads as follows:
(2) Unless it is otherwise provided, words and phrases in this act or in a special act have the same meaning as in the Railway Act.
In the Pipe Lines Act there may have been a need to refer back to the Railway Act for

the meaning of the various words. In this act we have defined the words we use. There is no need to refer back to the Railway Act for any of the meanings. The definitions are here. That is why that subsection 2 was not incorporated in this act.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister missed the point I was trying to get at. Section 2 of the Pipe Lines Act contains the words "in this act or in a special act" and it goes on to provide the various definitions whereas under the present act section 80 provides that a special act shall over-ride all the provisions in this act, which would also have the effect of over-riding the definition section. The thing that worries me as a lawyer is this. I do not want to be obliged to litigate over definitions when there is no provision for them under the special act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was perhaps referring to another section.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: That is supplementary to
section 2.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If my hon. friend will refer to section 80 which deals with the construing of special acts he will find that we have dealt with that matter quite separately.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Shall subclause (q) carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. That is a good point.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I do not think we have had an explanation, Mr. Chairman. I am not trying to labour the point. But if the bill is accurate, as it is, I feel there should be a logical explanation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Mr. Winch:: May I point out to the minister that section 80 does not cover what he has referred to.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: In my opinion, section 80 has the effect of over-riding the whole act. In other words, the special act completely over-rides this general act on energy. It therefore means that any of the words which are used in this subclause (q) cannot be interpreted in the special act in the same terms as they are interpreted under the energy act. I feel that is fundamental, and if it is not corrected we are running into difficulties because you have no interpretation for these terms under the special act.


Harold Edward Winch: How do you reconcile the two?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a difference of opinion here. We were not reading it that way. We were reading clause 80, subclause (a)-
National Energy Board,
-this act shall be construed as incorporate with a special act-
Which I thought covered that point, but my hon. friend does not see it that way.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: As I understand it, clause 80 is in part V dealing with oil pipe lines.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: This general definition section applies to the entire act, and clause 80 overrides the whole interpretation section. Therefore you have nothing to interpret the words used in a special act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member does not think that "special act" in (q) would refer to the act covered by the implications in clause 80; is that his point?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Yes. My contention on that basis is that under the Pipe Lines Act it refers to "in this act and in any special act", and it then goes on to define "special act" in subsection (h) in exactly the same way as you are defining it in subclause (q). I am not trying to cause any unnecessary difficulties, but I do not want to see the legislation enacted and then have to come back again.


George James McIlraith: It should be sent to a standing committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would welcome further argument with regard to this point. Perhaps I am not following my hon. friend, but I do not quite see the difficulty.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could explain it this way. Under the Pipe Lines Act, section 2 (1) starts off, "In this act and in any special act". Then it goes on to set out the various interpretation sections, including the special act definition which is used in this particular bill. Then as I understand it, if you look at the legislation, part V is practically taking out the Pipe Lines Act and putting it into the energy bill. Clause 80 of the energy bill says that a special act shall in effect supersede all the legislation contained in this section, and there is no definition in part V. The only definitions are at the beginning of this particular bill. Therefore on my interpretation there is no definition under the special act legislation or under the special act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is quite a neat point. The way we were reading the bill was that the interpretation clause of the bill starts off with, "In this act", and that is followed in clause 80, and our conclusion was that the interpretation clause here in the bill would apply throughout.
4128	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Clause 80 (b) says:
-where the provisions of this part and a special act relate to the same subject matter, the provisions of the special act shall, in so far as is necessary to give effect to the special act, be taken to override the provisions of this act.
But there is nothing to cover the definitions of these particular clauses being incorporated into the special act. In other words, there must have been some reason for putting it in the pipeline legislation stating, "In this act and in any special act".


Harold Edward Winch: It does not make sense as it is now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the hon. member want to hold over (q) for further consideration, or is he suggesting some additional words being incorporated?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, I thought perhaps the words used in the pipe line legislation would cover it, namely, "In this act and in any special act".


Mr. Roberge:: The pipe line legislation was good and quite clear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If that satisfies my hon. friend, we have no objection to incorporating clause 2, following the word "act", "and in any special act", which are the words in the present Pipe Lines Act.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to force an interpretation upon the committee, and if it is adequately covered and these definitions can apply to special act provisions, I will be satisfied. But to date I have not been satisfied, and if it should be considered further I am content with that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am prepared to let it stand and will give further consideration to my hon. friend's suggestion.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Is
the committee agreed that subclause (q) will stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subclause stands.
On subclause (r)-Toll.


George James McIlraith: I think the minister had some comment to make on this subclause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The question arose whether the word "transportation" should have been retained rather than the word "transmission" substituted. The opinion of the law officers is that "transmission" is satisfactory and somewhat more exact.


George James McIlraith: I would like to point out that over the recess I was able to check some copies of special acts I have, some 31 of them, and in all cases I checked the language used


was "transportation of oil and transmission of gas" in relation to this subject. In the judgments or orders of the board of transport commissioners-I have some ten of them which I had an opportunity of checking- they referred to the transportation of oil. My recollection is that in all the years I have been dealing with this subject the reference has always been to the transportation of oil by pipe lines and the transmission of gas by pipe lines. That being the case, and bearing in mind that all the judgments or orders of the board of transport commissioners and other memoranda they put out on this subject seemed to use that language, I am wondering about the wisdom of changing it unless there is some good reason. I am not prepared to defend the language as a matter of purity of English, but it is certainly the only language used heretofore in this context, namely of transporting oil through pipe lines.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think one of the reasons for the change, in addition to having a more exact expression, has been that we referred to the transmission of hydrocarbons, and by definition hydrocarbons include oil and gas. Thus we would be in difficulty with regard to the word "transportation", and the hon. gentleman would be arguing the opposite way.


George James McIlraith: My point is that they should both be in, otherwise these judgments in these oil cases become confusing. If the minister would look at the judgment of the board of transport commissioners in the oil cases he would find that in all cases reference is made to the transportation of oil and in the case of gas the word "transmission" is used. It seems to me they should both be in.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it would be an easy matter to put the word "transportation" back in, and then we would have them both.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Is
it agreeable to the committee that the subclause read "shipment, transportation and transmission", etc.


Howard Charles Green: The suggestion of the minister was that it should read: "shipment, transportation, transmission" and so forth.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Is
that proposal agreeable to the committee?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subclause as amended agreed to.
George James McIlraith: Before we turn to clause 3, there were two other matters outstanding with regard to clause 2. The first had to do with the omission of any definition of the word "energy", and the omission is significant

in the light of the use of the word "energy" in the latter part of the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right. I was asked why energy is not defined. It is used in the bill only in clause 22 in the part dealing with the advisory functions of the board. It was thought wise not to limit it by definition. There can be no misunderstanding of the subjects with which the board will be dealing as it continues its study and review of matters pertaining to energy and sources of energy. Sources of energy not now in use may be discovered or developed as time goes on, and there seems to be no necessity therefore to define and, by that means, to limit the meaning of "energy".


George James McIlraith: On that point, I draw the attention of the minister to the fact that clause 22 is mandatory. It charges the board with the responsibility of studying and keeping under review matters concerning energy and sources of energy in Canada. There are a great many sources of energy in Canada which I am sure it is not the government's intention that the board should be obliged to study and keep under review. That is the difficulty into which the minister is heading by omitting to define the term "energy".


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that although the
board is expected to study these matters and keep them under review it will not in its wisdom devote time and effort to unproductive subjects. I think we can trust the board to relate its work to what is generally understood by the words "sources of energy" and "energy".


George James McIlraith: The point I am making is that the board has no opportunity to exercise its wisdom in this respect. The legislation charges it with the responsibility to study and keep under review matters relating to energy and sources of energy. The board has no discretion to exclude certain sources of energy from its considerations. It has no authority for excluding them. That is the consequence of proceeding without a definition of the word "energy". I think it is reasonably clear from the course of this debate so far that the minister and the government have in mind that these studies shall pertain to certain well known sources of energy-oil, gas, coal, atomic energy and so on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What was in our minds was that the regulatory functions of the board would relate to electricity, gas and oil. But the study and review would relate to energy and sources of energy, and the board could range as widely afield as it wished, the purpose being that it should inform itself with
National Energy Board reference to these matters and be in a position to advise the government. We did not wish to place any restrictions on the board in this connection and we leave it to the judgment of the board as to the intensity of their study and the extent of their review in any particular direction.


George James McIlraith: My point is that the board is not left with any discretion in the matter. Following the minister's argument, either clause 22 must be changed or there must be a definition of "energy". The board cannot keep under review only those sources of energy which it thinks best deserve study. The hon. gentleman must either define the word "energy" or adopt the recommendation of the Borden commission relating to clause 22. He cannot have it both ways.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not see the matter in quite the same light as the hon. gentleman. There is an opportunity for the board to use its discretion. Part (2) of clause 22 states:
The board shall, at the request of the minister, prepare studies and reports on any matter relating to energy or sources of energy.
These would be matters to which they had already given study and which they had had under review, but more detail might be required by the government.


George James McIlraith: Paragraph (2) of clause 22 is discretionary, and the discretion lies with the minister. But paragraph (1) of clause 22 is mandatory and requires the board to include all energy and all sources of energy in its studies.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps we might take the example of solar energy which has been mentioned during the debate. Solar energy has not yet advanced through the stage of experimentation to the point where it is competitive with other fuel sources. The board will take cognizance of what is being done in relation to the harnessing of solar energy, but would not need to spend too much time on it at this stage. It will keep itself informed of what is happening and advise the government accordingly. Surely there is room here for the board to decide, in its wisdom, which subjects should receive long and detailed study, and which subjects should be given more limited consideration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think this is a matter of some importance and it may well be that if it is not dealt with now in this legislation it will cause confusion and difficulty later. Because we are not defining "energy", and because we are making it mandatory in a clause of this bill that the board shall keep
4130	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board under review all sources of energy we may leave the board in some doubt as to the extent of its obligation.
Practically everything is a source of energy, but surely the board is not obliged to keep all the various sources of energy under review. Someone over here has just remarked that cod liver oil is a source of energy, and so it is, but that is obviously not something which is in the mind of the hon. gentleman as a subject for study by the board. I think it is desirable to clear this matter up so that there may be no question of confusion.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The terms of reference of the Borden commission contained in order in council No. 1386 at page 90 of the report of the commission state, in part, as follows:
That, in as much as Canada has within its boundaries large sources of energy in the form of gas, oil, coal, water and uranium, the increasing need of energy for the growing industrial requirements of Canada renders it of the greatest importance to assure the most effective use of those resources in the public interest;
Whether or not the government sees fit to accept or implement the recommendations of the commission, surely that reference in the terms under which the commission was set up makes it imperative that the word "energy" be defined in this bill. Would the minister not agree with that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, who is to
determine what other sources of energy may come into use in the future and which may have the greatest importance? That is why we feel this should be left broad to allow the board through its technical branch and in its own wisdom to decide what sources of energy should be kept under intensive study.
In addition to that reference is made to the board studying and keeping under review questions of this kind. The board would maintain what is sometimes called a rolling inventory of the sources of energy in Canada so we may look far ahead and see whether the emphasis should be placed on one source of energy or another at varying times.


George James McIlraith: Dealing with the minister's remarks, who is to say the sources of energy that are to be affected? Parliament is saying now that the board shall do a certain thing. Parliament is making it mandatory that the board shall do certain things; in effect, keep under study and review sources of energy in Canada. That is what we are asking to be defined. And then, the minister has a discretion under subclause 2 of clause 22. That clause, by its nature, is discretionary


in the minister so that if new sources of energy are brought into being in the future the minister has the discretion under that clause to have the board study them and keep them under review. That argument does not apply to subclause 1 which is mandatory and absolute in form.


Mr. Denis:: The Tory party is a great
source of energy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: An inexhaustible source of energy.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, before the
dinner recess I asked the minister if there was any reason for omitting the definition of "lands" which was in the Pipe Lines Act and is not included in this bill. Could the minister comment at this time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I looked at that over the supper adjournment. It seemed not necessary to include it. It does not appear to be needed in this bill. If you read clauses 66 and 67 where it speaks of lands vested in Her Majesty and lands in an Indian reserve, you would see that the definition in the Pipe Lines Act would obviously be unnecessary and would not apply.
Clause stands.
On clause 3-Board established.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which deals with the establishment of the board. I was going to ask the minister if in the consideration that has been given to this legislation consideration was given to the establishment not of a board but of a special department of the government under a separate minister to deal with energy questions. I know a great deal could be said for or against this possibility but as the minister knows in some governments there is such a department. In the government of Ontario there is a department of energy under a separate ministry and the government of the United Kingdom has what I believe is called a ministry of fuel and power.
I was wondering if the minister and the government had considered that solution to the problem of governmental control of energy questions in their considerations of this matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, some attention was paid to that matter but we thought that everything that was desired from the standpoints of the national interest, efficient operation and the responsibilities of the government would be served by the establishment of a national energy board rather than through a government department.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, subclause (1) of clause 3 reads as follows:
There shall be a board, to be called the national energy board, consisting of five members to be appointed by the governor in council.
It might also be pointed out that recommendation No. 22 of the Borden commission suggests that the board should consist of not less than three and not more than five members. I think this committee has a right to know why five members were selected. After all, the scope and powers of the board being constituted under Bill No. C-49 are rather limited. We also remember that this government pledged itself to avoid waste and extravagance.
Furthermore, clause 13 of this bill provides that the board may delegate to one or more of its members, either jointly or severally, all or any of the powers, functions and duties of the board under this bill with certain exceptions that are specified. It will cover more than 75 of the 101 clauses of this bill. I therefore move:
That subsection (1) of section 3 of Bill C-49 be replaced by the following:
"3(1) There shall be a board, to be called the national energy board, consisting of three members to be appointed by the governor in council."


John Andrew W. Drysdale: What are you going to do about clause 6 where three is specified as a quorum?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All other consequential
changes would have to be made.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Recommendation No. 22 of the Borden commission has to be considered in relation to other recommendations of that report. They were thinking in terms of continuing the board of transport commissioners and setting up in addition to that an energy board. That is why the suggestion was made of three and not more than five.
Our conclusion was that it would be wiser to have an energy board and to transfer to it the functions now performed by the board of transport commissioners in this regard and that a membership of five would be suitable for that purpose.
Concerning the other statement the hon. member has made, he has misinterpreted the clause to which he referred. It will be seen when we come to it that it is subject to exceptions. The delegation to which the hon. member referred relates only to minor functions of the board and the clauses that are excluded from that contain the major functions that the board performs.
Certainly of the 101 clauses there are a great many under which a single member might be asked to act because they are matters where the board is not involved in an immediate decision but are exploratory.
66968-9-263
National Energy Board


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the committee will not agree that, notwithstanding his good intentions, the minister has really not dealt with the suggestion on its merits, that instead of a board of five there should be a board of three in accordance with the recommendation made by the Borden commission.
The Prime Minister told us, I think the day before yesterday, that since becoming Prime Minister he had been surprised to find out how difficult it was to persuade good and competent people to leave their private occupations and take on responsibilities of this kind. If there was much merit in the observation of the Prime Minister, that argument ought to be rather convincing in the context of the situation that is now before the committee. In addition to this, the minister has the example of the unemployment insurance commission of three members, a body that administers a very large fund and has very many heavy administrative responsibilities. I think the board of broadcast governors is limited to three but there is a large executive committee. I may be wrong in this one but my impression is that there are three consisting of Dr. Stewart and two others and they are assisted by a large executive committee. It would seem to me that, in addition to the reasons given by the hon. member for Gloucester, there is the third argument of efficiency and of preventing unnecessary expenditure, the great purpose to which this government was dedicated certainly in the days of elections and presumably in the days of actual responsibility not so much so.
I suggest to the minister that this is a good suggestion and that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation as to why it should not be accepted the minister should accept it. He has the opportunity at the moment of explaining, in addition to the reasons he has already given, further reasons, but unless he can establish clearly the necessity of having five members it seems to me it is not unreasonable to accept this suggestion. The consequential changes that will be required in the remaining subclauses of the clause can be dealt with simply by editorial revisions. They do not involve any fundamental obstacle to the suggestion as made that we ought to follow the pattern with regard to bodies of this sort that the federal government has established. Commissions of three have worked well. They provide for adequate representation of occupational interests, and I strongly suggest that the minister will find it not as difficult to appoint three as five if we are to take seriously the observations made
4132	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board by the Prime Minister. In any event, the minister owes us a much more complete reply than that which he has given.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am very happy to add to the explanation that I gave earlier. In the first place, let me point out and repeat that the Borden commission did not limit the number to three. It suggested three and not more than five. Second, the energy board will deal with one of the greatest industrial developments in Canada. The oil and gas industry is in its infancy and the whole development of energy and sources of energy in Canada is on the threshold of great advances. This board will be heavily engaged in dealing with one of the most vital parts of the Canadian economy. To limit the board to three members might incapacitate it from performing its function fully because there is always the chance of a member being away or ill. There is also the necessity for this board to do a certain amount of travelling throughout Canada and to hold hearings in various parts of the country. Furthermore, my hon. friend talks about having a board of three. He overlooks the fact that the board of transport commissioners is a board of six members. I do not recall that during his term in office he suggested that it be reduced for the purpose of economy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no comparison.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not recall his suggesting that it be reduced to three. We think this energy board will be as fully and actively employed as the board of transport commissioners. Consequently, the figure of five seems suitable in the circumstances.
There are other reasons which might be advanced to persuade my hon. friend of the weakness of his argument. I am glad he recognizes that we are interested in economical operations, but there can sometimes be false economy when you do not provide the proper number of people to carry out a job of major importance. From the experience of our friends across the border we know the difficulties they have had in an industry which has grown by leaps and bounds in that country, and which will grow by leaps and bounds in Canada. The work of the energy board will become increasingly onerous as the years go by.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think we all agree as to the importance of the oil and gas industry in the economy of Canada but the point is this: How do we get the most efficient board in relation to the duties it will have to perform? That is the question before the committee at the moment. I point


out to the minister that in his reference to the board of transport commissioners he did not really deal with the point at all. That board, consisting of six members, has responsibility under some 21 acts of parliament. If the minister would read the memorandum put out by the board of transport commissioners for Canada, a review of its constitution, jurisdiction and practice, he would see that that board has had to deal with the jurisdiction over railway applications, the very large question of freight rates in this country, a large question, indeed, as most western and eastern members will agree. Then, it has to deal with the lake shipping under the Transport Act; it has to deal with the tolls of telephone companies; it has certain jurisdiction under that legislation. It has had to deal with pipe line applications. In other words, it has covered all those fields I have mentioned in addition to certain subsidiary ones.
The legislation before us deals with certain pipe line companies. It was made clear before six o'clock that it does not deal with all of them, which is something a little less than the pipe line cases the board of transport commissioners was dealing with. But if we assume it is the same, that bit of the board of transport commissioners work required six full-time members. I suggest to the minister that if he wants an efficient board he wants a board that will be fully occupied. I suggest to him that he will more closely approximate that if he has three members rather than five.


Mr. McPhillips:: We will not appoint an undertaker as you did to the board of transport commissioners.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A new source of energy.


George James McIlraith: I am not quite clear as to what the interjection means; I admit my inability fully to understand it but I will let it go by and deal with the point before the committee. It seems to me that by setting up a board that will merely be a proliferation of appointees you are not going to get the type of members for that board which we all hope you will get. It is an unnecessary waste and duplication and I think the wrong way of approaching the thing. Certainly if it is only going to have jurisdiction over a very small part of the duties now performed by the board of transport commissioners there is no reason for five members.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, the clause now under consideration provides for the appointment of five members to the national energy board.

The board of transport commissioners is made up of six members who have to deal, among other things, with the matter of pipe lines.
In its report, the Borden commission recommended the appointment of three or five members.
Our Conservative friends, during their election campaigns, came out strongly against extravagance and waste.
It is now obvious, according to the bill under consideration, that for some years, this board that we are asked to establish will deal only with gas and oil, because, in the first place, the bill does not include a definition of the word "energy". Therefore the duties of the board will be restricted and I do not see why five members instead of three should be appointed. It might be that in a few years five members would be required but I suggest that, for the present time, three are enough.
(Text):


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, as one who comes from the province of Alberta I have a very considerable interest in the bill and I must say I have been somewhat disappointed at the picayune objections which members of the opposition are making, apparently with the object of delaying the passage of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Habel:: Making a better bill of it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can well understand that because members of their party in the province of Alberta-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gabriel Roberge: On a point of order, sir, I do not think the Minister of Agriculture should impute motives to the members of the opposition with regard to the work they are doing in this chamber.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will not impute any motives. I will just state the facts as they appear to one sitting here listening to this debate.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You just came in.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I say, I can well understand their object in trying to delay the bill and the setting up of the board so that it can begin to operate and deal with the various gas applications in the province of Alberta.


Gabriel Roberge: Is there an election there?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think there should be an opportunity to reply to the Minister of Agriculture.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Speak on the bill then.
66968-9-263 i
National Energy Board


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was about to suggest to hon. members of the opposition that instead of quarrelling over whether there should be three or five members-


Mr. Creslohl:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell us what clause he is addressing himself to? We are dealing with a specific clause and he is not speaking on that clause.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member had been paying attention to what I was saying he would know that I have just finished saying that instead of members of the opposition addressing themselves to the question of whether there should be three or five members-incidentally, the hon. member who has just spoken did not realize the number was five. He said six.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Instead of attempting to
delay the passage of the bill by, as I said before, objections which really do not amount to very much I think they would be much better advised to co-operate with the members of the government in getting the bill passed so that quite urgent gas export applications may be dealt with. However, as I was saying when I was interrupted I am not a bit surprised at this gambit because in the province of Alberta members of the Liberal party have been trying their utmost-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -for several years to prevent the export of gas from that province.


Howard Russell MacEwan: would ask the Minister of Agriculture to discuss clause 3 of Bill No. C-49.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, we are grateful to the Minister of Agriculture for his advice but it has nothing to do with the bill though it may have something to do with the Alberta election. If he had been here while this discussion was going on he would have realized-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that the suggestions we have made, which the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for the bill, has received in good faith, are suggestions which we had hoped would make the bill more effective to do the job it is intended to do without delaying unduly the passage of the bill. The provision of the bill we are on now deals with the number of members that should be appointed to the board. We have suggested that, without interfering in any way with the effectiveness of the board, we might reduce the number to three and save the taxpayers of this country $32,000 a year in salaries. That, of course, makes no impact

National Energy Board on the mind of the Minister of Agriculture, but it is of some importance provided that a board of three would do the job as well as a board of five. In that regard we suggest that no argument has been advanced yet which indicates the superiority of a board of five over a board of three. If no argument of that kind can be advanced then naturally a smaller board should be just as effective and more economical.
The minister has attempted to make a case that five members are required for this particular board. He made the analogy of the board of transport commissioners but that has been very effectively dealt with by the hon. member for Ottawa West. That board deals with 21 separate pieces of legislation. The minister also mentioned the federal power commission of the United States. The federal power commission of the United States, which has jurisdiction over matters which are, I am sure the minister will agree, of even greater importance and scope than any similar board in Canada, if there were a similar board, manages to get along with five members. It has jurisdiction over matters in the United States which in this country are reserved for provincial governments.
If the federal power commission can get along with a board of five to deal with matters of far greater scope than those to come under the board provided for in this legislation, surely a board of three would be just as effective in doing the work as a board of five and would save a good many thousands of dollars a year. I am the more convinced of that, because the regulatory functions of a board of that kind, as anyone realizes who knows anything about the operations of administrative boards, can be performed as well by three men as by five, and in some cases perhaps better by three men.
The minister attempted to make the point that if there were a board of three members one member might be ill or away and what would you do then? But the minister himself has made provision for that contingency in subclause 6 of clause 3 which reads as follows:
If any member of the board by reason of absence or other incapacity is unable at any time to perform the duties of his office, the governor in council may appoint a temporary substitute member upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may prescribe.
That is covered. So far as the investigatory, research and reporting functions of the board are concerned, the minister must know, as anyone who has had the responsibility of government knows, that the actual work of investigation and research will be done in large part at least by the staff which will be accumulated by the board or by the staffs

of all the other agencies of government which deal with this matter. He must know that the five members of the board, five very responsible members, hard to secure with the ability and experience, members who are going to be paid good salaries though perhaps not as much as they would get in civil life, are not going to do very much in the way of carrying on investigation and research and reporting. Therefore it seems to us, notwithstanding the Minister of Agriculture who has barged into the argument with an irrelevant political observation, that the work of the board will be just as effective and will be done more economically if we have three members instead of five.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: What would the quorum be?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Two.


Harold Edward Winch: Surely you would not put two Conservatives out of a job?


Gabriel Roberge: The Minister of Agriculture said that I did not know what I was speaking about when I referred to six members.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You referred to six members.


Gabriel Roberge: I said that under the Railway Act the board of transport commissioners had six members but according to the bill before us the energy board is to have five members. We argue that there should be only three members on this board. I can repeat that in French.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Robichaud) negatived: Yeas, 21; nays, 72.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 3 carry?


Armand Dumas: No. Speaking to clause 3, may I say this. It seems strange that paragraph (5) of clause 3 does not preclude any member of the board from holding bonds, debentures, promissory notes and such documents or from selling or buying those bonds or debentures and many other items. Apparently they can be members of the board even if they hold debentures of an oil or gas company or if they hold bonds. I am therefore greatly surprised that this matter was not taken care of. I understand that the Railway Act provides that members of the board of transport commissioners may not own such bonds or debentures. I do not know why the minister

overlooks this matter. At this point I should like to move an amendment which reads as follows:
That subsection (5) of section 3 of bill C-49 be replaced by the following:
The clause could be numbered as it is, namely clause 3, paragraph 5, subparagraph (i) and it would read exactly the same as paragraph (5).
"3(5) (1) A person is not eligible to be appointed or to continue as a member of the board if he is not a Canadian citizen, or if, as owner, director, officer, partner or otherwise, he is engaged in the business of producing, selling, buying, transmitting, exporting, importing or otherwise dealing in hydrocarbons or power."
But there would be another subparagraph.
"(ii) No member shall directly or indirectly hold, purchase, take or become interested in any stock, share, bond, debenture or other security of any company subject to this act; and if any such stock, share, bond, debenture or other security or any part thereof or any interest therein comes to or vests in a member by will or succession for his own benefit, he shall, within three months thereafter, absolutely sell and dispose of the same or his interest therein."
I hope that the minister will not say that this is not an important one.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is exactly the same. It is another delaying tactic.


Mr. Hobichaud:: You are so accustomed to delaying your own estimates that you think everybody else is doing the same.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave):: Order. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Armand Dumas: Will the minister comment?


Mr. Bourgel:: The minister shouldi say something on the amendment. It is extremely important.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I recognize the importance and also the length of the amendment which requires study. The way in which the bill is worded now is a standard wording to make sure that people who are eligible for positions of this nature are not concerned with some of these matters. The word "otherwise" introduced in line nine and again in line eleven is considered broadly to cover some of the things which have been written into the amendment which has been submitted to us. We felt that from this wording in subsection (5) it would be perfectly clear that no particular benefit would be resulting to a member of the board. In subsection (5) we say that a person is not eligible -if as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise, he is engaged in the business of producing, selling, buying, transmitting, exporting, importing or otherwise dealing in hydrocarbons or power.
National Energy Board
Looking at the Railway Act to which reference was made, I note that the definition we have here is in some respects wider than that in the Railway Act.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the references of the Minister of Agriculture to these matters as picayune-[DOT]


Douglas Scott Harkness: You do not like them.


George James McIlraith: No. I think they reveal an incompetence that is shocking. I think if the minister is not familiar with the subject-


Douglas Scott Harkness: They hit home too much for you. That is what you do not like.


George James McIlraith: If the minister has not any knowledge of the subject or has not any interest in it, I think he should permit the minister who is sponsoring the bill and is anxious to get on with it an opportunity to do so. His continued reference to these matters as picayune and delaying is not worthy of a minister of the crown.
In seeking to get the best possible board- and the Prime Minister in his own speech on second reading made it clear that such is his desire in respect of this board and he therefore properly made reference to that subject-it is important that the members of the board be not in a position in which their interests can conflict with their duties. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce will see that the present clause is not as wide as were the provisions of the Railway Act dealing with the same subject.
The amendment is substantially derived from the Railway Act and is an attempt to deal with the subject by adding to the provisions of the Railway Act on a similar point. It will be noticed, for instance, that under the national energy bill setting up the board there is no provision excluding bondholders or pipe manufacturers, and so on, and I would ask the minister to give the matter further study because I think it is a matter important enough to warrant further study. The Railway Act provisions are considerably wider and I think better protect against the possibility of having a board where the interests of the members of that board can conflict with their duties.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate the hon. member's suggestion that we might take a little time to study this matter. It is an amendment of some length and should be read rather carefully to see whether or not it would fit in suitably with the clause as now drafted. I would be quite prepared to suggest that subclause (5) stands until we have the chance to examine it further.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

National Energy Board


Robert Jardine McCleave: would remind the committee that we have been dealing with the whole clause and not just the particular subclause. Is it the wish of the committee that the whole clause stands?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I was referring just to the subclause. I think the other parts might be dealt with unless there are any other comments.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I think in this case the other subclauses should be dealt with.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we had considerable discussion with regard to the first part and a vote was taken on that. These other subclauses seem to me not to arouse controversy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let subclause (5) stand and we can go on with the others.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The others are the normal provisions with regard to the establishment of the board, the tenure of members, the appointments, retirement age, temporary substitute members, residence, other employment prohibited, and so on.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is
it agreed that clause 3, subclause (5) do now stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Subclause 8 is next.


George James McIlraith: On subclause (8) I have one matter which I think should be brought to the attention of the minister. It concerns the establishment of the kind of board we want, and I agree with the necessity of getting a competent board. I was quite concerned with some remarks of the Prime Minister on second reading. He spoke about the difficulty of getting competent members on a board of this kind and the difficulties of having adequate compensation, and that sort of thing. I was tempted, as a matter of fact, to suggest to him at the time that there are other factors in getting the best possible board, and one is that the board, since it is a court of record, should be given independence to carry on its own work within the ambit of the bill and not be interfered with or dictated to. There is a good deal to be said on the subject about why members of these boards are leaving. I for one am perfectly frank in admitting that I am concerned about the number of able men who have left various boards within the last few years. I think of boards such as the board of transport commissioners, the Canadian farm loan board and the tariff board. There is a real problem for the government there

in the loss to the public service of Canada of men of the calibre who have left those boards.
The point I want to make arises out of the Prime Minister's remarks on page 4025 of Hansard for May 26 last. He was dealing at that point with certain Alberta applications, and I would like to quote a passage from what the Prime Minister said in order to make my point. In referring to these applications he had this to say:
In so far as those applications are concerned, they will be processed immediately by the board when it is set up. It will be set up immediately. There will be no need to wait for the mobilization of the board. The members of the board, from the evidence taken by the Gordon commission, the evidence taken by the Borden commission and the evidence taken by the conservation board of Alberta, will be in a position, I am sure, to determine fully the entire question.
The point I want to make is that the minister gave a firm commitment as to what the board would do. He did not indicate that he would ask the board to undertake the matter immediately, to deal with these cases immediately, and have the necessary hearings, or as the case may be. Not only that, but he went further. He undertook to indicate what evidence the board could deal with. That is a pretty serious matter. If you are setting up a board which will be a court of record, and then before the board is set up limit the evidence it can hear on particular applications, it is indeed quite shocking and I am sure not what the Prime Minister intended had he thought about it. I think he has had enough court experience to realize the impropriety of that course, and I would hope that the minister at some point in dealing with this matter will clarify the position and make it perfectly clear that there will be no such dictation to the board as is indicated in the remarks I have quoted. I regret that the Prime Minister is not here himself to deal with the point, because I am sure he could not have realized the extent to which he went in those remarks in the form in which they appear in Hansard. They appear to be absolutely ordering the board as to what they shall do, and even determining what evidence they shall consider in certain cases which will be coming before them in the future. I think it is a point which should be made very clear before any members are appointed to the board, or indeed any persons are approached to be members of the board.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall subclause (8) carry?


George James McIlraith: Would the minister make some reference to that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, all I would like to say here is that I did not read that

or interpret it as an order to the board to do anything. As I read the paragraph, the Prime Minister said that in his view from the evidence already accumulated the board will be in a position, he is sure, to determine fully the entire question. There is no order to the board in that sentence whatsoever. The intention is, as he set out there, to move as rapidly as possible in this matter.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I point out that the Prime Minister said with reference to those applications, the particular named applications, that they will be processed immediately by the board when it is set up. In other words, he was not going to ask the board to do it but-


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member
a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: In view of the great importance of these applications, does the hon. member not wish to have them processed as quickly as possible?


George James McIlraith: Of course I do. That is my whole point. I want to get men competent to process them as soon as possible, but you cannot get the kind of men you want who are competent to process them by putting on record that the Prime Minister will determine when they will process them.


Howard Charles Green: We will get the men; do not worry about that.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry, but I will worry about it. I am sorry the Minister of Public Works takes that attitude, but there is a parliamentary responsibility and it is not a thing which should be treated in that way at all. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce more nearly appreciates the point, and I should be glad if he would address himself to the first sentence of the Prime Minister's remarks I quoted in which it appears that an absolute commitment or order was being given to the board.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know whether or not the minister intends to answer the point made by the hon. member for Ottawa West, but it seems to me he might give us an indication of who the government intends to appoint to this board. I understand that a decision has already been made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


George James McIlraith: I still think the minister should address himself to the point. This cloud over the board should surely be removed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I doubt the relevancy of the hon. member's remarks about this subclause
National Energy Board and the speech made by the Prime Minister on May 26. I fail to see the connection between the two. However, I think that what the Prime Minister was indicating was that there should be quick action.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What he intended to indicate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When he spoke of the mobilization of the board he meant that it would not be necessary to wait for the entire staff to be assembled down to the most junior office boy, but that the board could turn its attention to matters of immediate concern.


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
On clause 4-Salaries.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Clause 4 in subclause (1), calls for certain salaries to be paid to the chairman, vice-chairman and members of the board. We are not questioning those salaries, because we realize that if we want to get men to do the job which they are called upon to do under this bill they must be paid accordingly. But when we come to subclause (2) stating that expenses shall be paid to the members of the board, we certainly have some questions to raise. The subclause reads:
Each member is entitled to be paid reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred by him in the performance of his duty while away from his ordinary place of residence.
We know that according to subclause (7) of clause 3 members may reside a distance away from Ottawa, as the governor in council determines. This leaves an opening for unwarranted expenses and we feel that a firmer control should be imposed over this board as far as travelling and other expenses are concerned. I therefore move:
That subclause (2) of clause 4 be amended by replacing the words "his ordinary place of residence" by "the city of Ottawa".
It should be remembered that this board is called upon to sit in Ottawa, and for this reason we feel that the amendment should be accepted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there to be no explanation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I doubt if the hon. and very alert hon. members opposite need any explanation. This is simply a provision for reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred by members of the board in the performance of their duty. As to the provision regarding the ordinary place of residence, which we have suggested should be the city of Ottawa or within 25 miles thereof, that is modelled on section 15 of the Railway Act.

National Energy Board The distance limitation has been modified somewhat because of modern forms of transportation. The members should live within 25 miles of Ottawa.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Or within such other distance-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Somebody might be five miles further out.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Or might live in Winnipeg.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are some competent people in Winnipeg who might serve on this board if that is what the hon. member has in mind. But normally one would expect them to be living here in Ottawa or near to Ottawa. As to drawing the line at 25 miles; well, someone might be 30 miles away. That is all we had in mind.


Murdo William Martin: The bill does not say that.


George James McIlraith: The minister indicates what he had in mind, but the measure itself says something quite different, and the amendment would make the position clear. Unless the amendment is accepted it will be quite possible for a member of the board to reside in Winnipeg and have all his travelling and similar expenses paid for coming to Ottawa to attend these hearings as set out in another part of the bill. It is to avoid that kind of situation that the amendment has been proposed. In other words, there is an unfortunate gap in the legislation as it is now presented to us, and if the minister would bring his proposals into line with the intentions he has indicated, we would be quite happy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Section 15 of the Railway Act contains that phrase "within such distance thereof"-referring to the city of Ottawa-as the governor in council at any time determines. Has any trouble arisen in the past, in the experience of hon. gentlemen opposite who were formerly in power, which would lead them to find fault with this provision now?


George James McIlraith: The answer to that question is: yes-a very dogmatic yes. Though I may say it was not under the Railway Act.


Gabriel Roberge: The minister referred to section 15 of the Railway Act. He is right, of course, when he says that this provision of the Railway Act states "within such distance thereof as the governor in council at any time determines." But the minister failed to refer to section 29 which deals with the expenses and remuneration of officers of the board when they are away from Ottawa on duty. Under the bill we are now considering the ordinary place of residence may be


St. John's, Newfoundland or Vancouver, and every time a member of the board comes to Ottawa for two days he would be able to claim expenses.


Leon David Crestohl: I wonder if the minister would offer a word of explanation about the phrase "and other expenses incurred by him" in subclause (2) of clause 4. We can understand what reasonable travelling expenses are, but there is nothing to indicate what the other expenses may be, nor does the subclause speak as generously about the other expenses as it does about travelling expenses. When it speaks of travelling expenses, it speaks of reasonable travelling expenses. At least the subclause should read: "and other reasonable expenses".


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I think we should have a better explanation from the minister than the one he has given. After all, it has been said that this board is called upon to sit in Ottawa. Ottawa is the seat of this board, even if it is not the residence of all the members, and as the measure now stands, as was pointed out by my colleague from Ottawa West, a member of the board could have his ordinary place of residence in Winnipeg, come to Ottawa to attend the sittings of the board and have all his travelling and other expenses paid at a cost to the government of $25 or $30 a day or more. I think this is simply running the risk of incurring unnecessary expense and we are warning this government which has committed itself to avoiding all unnecessary extravagance of the possible consequences. I want to recall to the government as well that at present there is an inquiry going on in certain committees about travelling and moving expenses. That is a warning to the minister. I think he should take it in good faith and accept this amendment.


Leon David Crestohl: If the minister chooses not to answer the question he leaves the words "other expenses" open to inclusion of the interpretation of unreasonable expenses. I draw to his attention again that when speaking of travelling expenses the word "reasonable" is used but not in respect of the words "other expenses". Does that mean that these other expenses may be unreasonable?
I have another question for the minister. Has the government estimated what it would cost the country in the over-all picture to operate the national energy board including salaries, offices, staff and whatever the requirements might be? Can the committee have some indication as to what the estimated cost of this will be to the country?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer the hon. member's second question. In the course of time we will have some estimate of that expense.
With regard to his first question about the word "reasonable" I do not read it as applying only to the word "travelling". It applies to "other expenses" and I think would be so construed by anyone reading that sentence.
(Translation):


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, I think the government should be consistent. In fact, subsection 8 of section 3 provides that:
Members shall devote the whole of their time to the performance of their duties under this act.
Therefore, if board membership implies full time duties, I take it the government expects board members to reside in Ottawa. If board members may reside say in Vancouver or in Newfoundland and travel to Ottawa to discharge their duties or functions, the government will have to pay their expenses and, in my view, that is inconsistent. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) should be wise enough to accept the amendment we have just put forward.
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is
the committee ready for the question?


Armand Dumas: The minister should answer
my argument.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The argument has been
pressed with some vigour. I note that subclause (7) declares where the members usually reside. Subclause (2) of clause 4 when it speaks of the ordinary place of residence, obviously must be read in conjunction with subclause (7) of clause 3; so it is Ottawa or within 25 miles thereof.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not Winnipeg or
Vancouver or some distant place.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I will not
say the minister is trying to mislead the committee because he would call me out of order. However, he is reading only part of subclause (7). It reads:
(7) Each member shall during his term of office reside in the city of Ottawa or within twenty-five miles thereof-
The minister stopped there. The subclause continues:
-or within such other distance thereof as the governor in council determines.
The minister should have read those last two lines. This bill gives too much power to the cabinet. This is one case where by order in council a member may be allowed
National Energy Board to reside in Winnipeg, for instance, and his expenses would be paid during all the time he was in Ottawa. If he were to come here for two or three months at a time his expenses would be paid.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. I take it that the committee having agreed to subclause (7) of clause 3, hon. members in debate on subclause (2) of clause 4 will refer only to subclause (7) of the preceding paragraph in an incidental manner. It is not to be opened up for debate again.


Armand Dumas: We accept that.


George James McIlraith: The minister put a rather pointed question to me a moment ago when I took exception to subclause (2) of clause 4. I pointed out that it was not in language that coincided with the language used in subclause (7) of clause 3. The minister asked rather pointedly if I had knowledge of any such case where this difficulty arose. I gave a somewhat dogmatic answer which I meant precisely the way it was given. I point that out as something that should be dealt with.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the committee ready for the question?


George James McIlraith: Let us make it clear. Does the minister not wish to answer that point?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George James McIlraith: I do not care to accept the answer of hon. gentlemen opposite.
(Translation) :


Azellus Denis: Would the minister tell us the difference between the ordinary place of residence of a board member, and his residence while performing his duties in Ottawa? As far as I can make out, paragraph 2 of section 4 deals with his ordinary place of residence. Then, I take it a board member has to reside in Ottawa during his term of office. Is that not so?
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are waiting for a reply.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Those in favour of the amendment will please rise.
(Translation):


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, we are not satisfied. I think-


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Order!


Armand Dumas: I think the hon. member is quite unwise to act in that way. The

National Energy Board
minister should realize that this amendment Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl): Does the word is a reasonable one. We are not making undue "may" not have a periphrastic effect in the demands. This is a logical amendment, and Interpretation Act? Does it not really mean I think the minister should respond to it.	"shall"?
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Robichaud) negatived: Yeas, 22; nays, 73.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Chairman and Vice Chairman.
George James McIlraith: I have one point to raise here. There is a provision in the Railway Act providing that a judge of a superior court of Canada or of any province of Canada, or who is a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years' standing, may be appointed chief commissioner. This provision is found in section 10 of the Railway Act. Has the minister considered that provision and is there any reason for omitting it from this clause, which seems to correspond somewhat with the Railway Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I would say with regard to that that we did look at the section to which my hon. friend has referred. We considered that it was not necessary in this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Rules.
Harold Edward Winch: I would like the minister to explain this. Quite bluntly, I cannot understand why the word "may" is there and not "shall". This clause deals with the rules of the board. It says in part:
The board may make rules respecting
(a)	the sittings of the board;
(b)	the procedure for making applications, representations and complaints to the board and the conduct of hearings before the board, and generally the manner of conducting any business before the board;-
And so on. It is strictly something that the board does. Why the word "may" and not "shall"; is it automatic that the board must make these rules?


An hon. Member:: It is not permissive.


Harold Edward Winch: It would be a terrible board if it did not make these rules.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is the normal method of empowering a board to do something. Hon. members will find wording along this line in section 20 of the Railway Act. The board may make rules and provisions respecting the type of thing that is listed here. There is nothing unusual about this wording in acts of this kind.


Harold Edward Winch: The board cannot even function unless it does mean "shall".


George James McIlraith: It does.


Harold Edward Winch: Am I correct in that? How can the board act under permissive rules? It cannot function at all.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Secretary and other officers and employees.
George James McIlraith: I take it that clause 8 derives from the Railway Act, so that there are no substantial changes from the provisions of the Railway Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is modelled on the Railway Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Experts.
George James McIlraith: I take it that clause 9 also follows the Railway Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is modelled on section 21 of the Railway Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Board a court.
George James McIlraith: I have one question on this clause. Paragraph 1 of clause 10 contains the simple statement that the board is a court of record. How does the minister reconcile this provision with clause 22 of the bill which provides for duties which are not usually those of a court?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think this simply indicates that the board has double duties. I do not think it is a question of reconciliation. The board has double duties to perform.


George James McIlraith: The point I want to make is that it is not the court of record that will perform those advisory duties that clause 22 has reference to. The court of record should obviously more properly have reference to all other provisions of the bill rather than clause 22.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
On clause 13-Delegation.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: This clause states that the board may delegate certain powers to one or more of its members, either jointly or severally. Can the minister explain to this committee what is the difference between the powers, functions and duties which the

board may delegate to one or more of its members and those that are excepted in this section?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I regret I did not hear the conclusion of my hon. friend's remarks.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister explain to the committee the difference between the powers which may be delegated by the board to one or more of its members and those that cannot be delegated? There are certain exceptions such as 36, 37, 38, and so on, as outlined in the clause. Then, the powers of the board are listed in part IV of the bill. What is the difference between those duties and the ones that can be delegated to one member only?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is an error in these, and I shall be having an amendment moved in a moment to delete it. The clauses listed here are clauses in which there are major decisions to be made, and the board acts as a board with regard to these. The delegation to one or more of its members applies to functions in which the board is not sitting and making a decision. The hon. member can check with each one of those clauses that are listed here, which clearly indicate the importance of the duties of the board which would quite improperly be delegated to a single member of the board. It has just been made clear that these things are to be done by the board as a board.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, in order to illustrate what the minister has said, does he mean that one member of the board could be delegated by the board to issue licences, certificates, permits, and so on, under the regulations?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is just the opposite. These are the things that are listed in these exceptions, namely 36 on to the end of the paragraph.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, in view of the minister's explanation, clause 12 says:
The board may order and require any person to do. forthwith, or within or at any specified time and in any manner prescribed by the board so far as it is not inconsistent with this act, any act, matter or thing that such person is or may be required to do under this act, or any regulation, certificate, licence or permit,-


Harold Edward Winch: Is it not a mandatory order and not a permissive one?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the hon. member did not read the entire clause and his omission makes it confusing. If he will look at line 35 he will see the words, "and may forbid the doing or continuing of any act, matter or thing that is contrary to this act or any such regulation, certificate, licence, permit, order or direction".
National Energy Board


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Then the board may
delegate to one of its members full and exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine any matter mentioned in clauses 11 (a) and 11 (b) which would lead to the issue of certificates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps I did not follow the reasoning of my hon. friend, but if it comes to the issuing of the certificate then clause 44 on page 14 of the bill clearly indicates how that may be done by the board, subject to the approval of the governor in council.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: My reason for making this point is that the minister stated earlier when he introduced an amendment to clause 3 that the board would require five members because there was a lot of work involved and the board would have to have hearings throughout the country. What I want to point out is that one member of the board can be delegated to function at these hearings, according to clause 13.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think there is a misunderstanding here. It is only with regard to the orders made by the board that one person might be delegated to hear that particular matter but certainly he is not given the authority to issue certificates or to take the powers of the board itself.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The point is that one member of the board may be sent anywhere in the country to hold a hearing. He then comes back, makes his recommendation to the board and the board will issue a certificate. It does not take five members to sign or issue a certificate or permit.


Robert Jardine McCleave: For the sake of convenience, we have had notice of an amendment but the committee has not had the amendment placed before it. Perhaps it could be brought before the committee now.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There has been no notice of an amendment. We just asked the minister for an explanation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: There was verbal notice of an amendment to this clause.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, with respect to clause 13 I should like to move the following amendment:
That clause 13 be amended (1) by striking out "section 36" in line 44 on page 5 and substituting therefor "subsection (3) of section 36, section", and (2) by striking out the figure "85" in line 45 on page 5.


Harold Edward Winch: What is the effect of the
amendment?

National Energy Board


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The committee has heard the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Harold Edward Winch: I tried to hear what the Minister of Public Works was changing but I have not got the bill before me. What is the effect of the amendment?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The effect of the second part of the amendment is to correct a misprint. The "85" should not have been there. The first part of the amendment substitutes subsection 3 of section 36 instead of all of section 36. If you will look at section 36 on page 12 you will find that subsection 1 deals with approval of deviations, subsection 2 with the construction of works after approval and subsection 3 with exemptions. Subsection 3 says that "the board may exempt a company" and that is a function which would not be performed by one member of the board under delegation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 as amended agreed to.
On clause 14-Powers of single member.
Gabriel Roberge: I should like to ask the minister if clause 14 (1) differs from the similar clause in the Railway Act and if it does what is the difference?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 14 (1) is identical with section 12 (1) (b) of the Railway Act. Clause 14, subsection 2, is modeled on section 36 of the Railway Act. Does the hon. member wish any further comment on that particular point?


Gabriel Roberge: The minister states that clause 14 (1) is identical with section 12 (1) (b) of the Railway Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is identical except for inappropriate words. The Railway Act refers to the chief commissioner where this bill speaks of the chairman. The Railway Act talks about commissioners where this bill speaks of members.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Progress reported.

Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister tell us what the order of business is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall continue with this debate and if it should be concluded we will take the estimates of the Department of Public Works.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it is not concluded, can my hon. friend tell us what the order of business will be for Monday?


Howard Charles Green: If the bill is not finished tomorrow we would go on with it on Monday. If it should be finished, then we would take a supply motion. I believe there is some possibility of agreement being reached between the three parties that the supply motion will be for one day only instead of two, with the vote at 8.15 in the evening, so that members will have from that time until ten o'clock to bring forward any grievances.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is clear that we will be on this bill on Monday if we do not finish it tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday. May 29, 1959


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park) presented the sixth report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.