1959-06-02

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of a statement I made in the house last night and which is found on page 4224 of Hansard. We were discussing the provisions of the bill before the house which we thought, in the form in which it was, conflicted with a statement made by the Prime Minister on second reading of the bill, and in a rather colloquial and light-hearted way, in order to point out this conflict and try to have it removed, I said-and I am quoting from Hansard-
All we are asking the minister to do is to make an honest man of the Prime Minister by this amendment.
It has been brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker, that this might be interpreted as a reflection on the Prime Minister. Of course it was not intended as such, and if any such interpretation were given to it I would be the first to regret it.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I might be allowed to say just one word. I know that in the course of debate we say things the tone of which is not apparent in the cold print of Hansard. I thank the hon. gentleman for what he has said, and I express my deep appreciation of the attitude he has shown.



VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on veterans affairs-Mr. Dinsdale.


John George Diefenbaker: That on Wednesday, June 3, 1959, and on every Wednesday, Thursday and Friday thereafter until the end of this session, the hours of sitting shall be as follows:
Wednesdays-11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Thursdays-11.00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., and 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Fridays-11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., and 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and that the provisions of standing orders 2(1) and 6(3) be suspended In relation thereto.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply for the purpose of moving the motion to which you have alluded and to express the hope that it will receive the support of the house. In bringing it up at this point in the session I think we follow in general the position that has been established in this house over the years.
No one will be rash enough to conclude with any certainty the time when the business of the house will be completed in any year. I feel, having regard to the fact that this is the 92nd day of sitting, that it is opportune to do those things which are ordinarily done in order to expedite consideration of the matters yet to be brought before the house.
In presenting the motion I would point out that Mondays and Tuesdays are still left untouched. In that connection may I say that I understand there are still two supply motions to be dealt with before this session can conclude. We are leaving Monday and Tuesday mornings open until the supply motions are dealt with, and at the same time we are providing extra time for the holding of the meetings of committees which are still continuing to sit.
I mentioned a moment ago that I am following a course similar to that taken by my predecessors in office. Looking over the record I find that in 1947 Wednesday evening sittings began on the 78th day, May 28, and that morning sittings-this is one exception I want to place before the house-did not begin until July 10, the 109th day. That was the course as well in 1947-48 when the house opened on December 5 and morning sittings did not begin until the 102nd day.
However, in 1949 the session was divided and at the first session, which was prior to the election, morning sittings began on the 38th day and in the second session following the election on the 42nd day. In the regular session of 1950 the house opened on February 16 and morning sittings began on the 69th day, which was June 1. In 1951 the house opened on January 30 and morning sittings began on June 11, the 88th day. In the second session of 1951 morning sittings began on the 45th day. In the session of 1952

Business of the House
morning sittings began on the 71st day, June 16. In the 1952-53 session morning sittings began on the 84th day. In both 1952-53 and 1953-54 sittings began in the fall of the year and in the 1953-54 session morning sittings began on May 31. In 1955 morning sittings began on June 9, the session having commenced on January 7. In 1956 the session opened on January 10 and morning sittings did not begin until July 16.
Generally speaking this is approximately the time when this motion has been moved. I for one do not want to do anything to place the opposition in an impossible position. I realize how much preparation must be made by an opposition member. I know something of the difficulties involved in not having a secretarial force attached to the civil service to provide the necessary research information. However, taking all these matters into consideration I hope that without in any way indicating that we are trying to rush the conclusion of the session, which is farthest from my mind, I think now is the appropriate time to make this motion. We still have available two mornings in the week, and Saturday sittings do not begin until we are closer to the end than it is apparent at the present time. Wednesday evenings as well are still not taken up.
No one wants to push consideration of the measures that are before the house or which will come before the house. We want the fullest possible discussion, but in order to bring the session to an end within the reasonable period for which we all hope I make this motion at this time, and I am asking for general support.
If on the other hand the attitude is that we do not want to get along, well, the motion will still be in its position on the order paper. However, I hope we can secure that degree of general support which will assure the fullest discussion and the most complete and mature deliberation of the measures that come before us, coupled with that expedition which, I am sure, it is always desired to achieve.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has asked me to say a word or two on this motion, and I am happy to do so. I am sure that all of us on this side of the house will agree with the general position that it is not only necessary but advisable that we conclude the sittings of this house, having regard however to the amount of work that is before us on the order paper and having regard also to our responsibilities as an opposition to parliament.
I agree with the Prime Minister in some of the suggestions and some of the ideas which

he expressed a moment ago. There are, on the other hand, some matters which I believe should be brought to the attention of parliament and which were perhaps not brought forcibly to the attention of the Prime Minister. Some of them are as follows. In the first place, I think the moment this motion is put on the order paper it is indicative that the end of the session is in sight. This has been my experience, at least, when I sat on the other side of the house. However, when I look at the order paper, and when I look at the estimates unpassed, and at the work of the committees, as well as some of the other things which I will mention later, I cannot see the end of this session in sight before anywhere from six to eight weeks, or perhaps more than that.
I shall tell the Prime Minister why. All one has to do is glance at the order paper and at the other matters with which parliament is concerned. The first of these is the estimates. Thus far only three departments have been concluded, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Agriculture, and I believe the Department of Labour. All the other departments still remain to be dealt with. I am not suggesting for one moment that the other departments should take as long as these three. I hope they will not. We will certainly give the fullest co-operation to the consideration of these estimates with the dispatch which is necessary to their proper consideration.
But I remind the house that the remaining departments alone constitute enough work for almost four weeks, if not more than that. Then from amongst those departments I single out the Department of National Defence which is one which certainly should take as much time, because of its importance, as the Department of Agriculture. There is the Department of External Affairs, upon which we have had some debate but which has not been completed. There are many other departments, including the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I am sure my friend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) will have a long statement to make which will be highly contentious-


Mr. Hees:: There is nothing contentious in it.


Lionel Chevrier: -and which will take some time. But be that as it may, there are these estimates which deserve consideration. Then there is the work of the committees. It seems to me that the practice in the past has been to bring in a motion of this kind when the work of the committees was about completed or on the verge of being completed. My understanding of the work of the committees is that it has hardly begun.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friends say "Oh, oh". Let them look at Votes and Proceedings of yesterday. There, on the last page but one, they will see what committees are meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. There are no less than eight such committees meeting. How we can perform our duties in the House of Commons and be at those committees is rather difficult to understand, particularly now when the house is going to sit in the mornings beginning on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. It therefore seems to me that little or no consideration has been given to that fact.
Then I am informed by the hon. member for Essex East that in the committee on industrial relations a motion was made, which fortunately was not passed; at least an attempt was made to have that committee sit while the house was sitting. That is a repetition of what was done in the public accounts committee last year. Although the attempt was made it was not successful. I submit that this procedure is a mistake. With deference I submit to the Prime Minister that it is a mistake to ask the members of the opposition while we are responsible for our work in the house, to sit in committees while the house is sitting and to consider matters of importance in those committees.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you work?


Lionel Chevrier: It seems to me that procedure is not consistent with the work we have to perform in the house. Then all I need say in response to those on the other side of the house who are interrupting, is to ask them to remember what attitude was taken by those who now sit on the government benches under similar circumstances when they sat on this side of the house. I know they protested bitterly under those circumstances. Having regard to the information I have just given here, I do not see that the circumstances are at all different.
Then, Mr. Speaker, would you allow me to say a word about the legislation which remains to be dealt with by the house. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister-I believe it was on April 21 of this year-what the remaining business was. Just listen to this, 'Mr. Speaker; this is what the Prime Minister said six weeks ago, as reported at page 2877 of Hansard:
I would say that in addition to the items which are already on the order paper the following will be introduced: the bill of rights, a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, a bill to establish a national energy board, a bill to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act, a bill to provide additional grants to the province of Newfoundland, an amendment to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act; bills respecting the superannuation of members of the
Business of the House
Royal Canadian Mounted Police and members of the Canadian forces; a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act, and a bill to bring in certain amendments to the Criminal Code.
Then he went on to say this:
In the field of agriculture, amendments will be introduced to assist the provinces in implementing crop insurance, as well as a bill to extend and improve farm credit facilities, and a bill to allow veteran farmers to take greater advantage of modern agricultural practices will be introduced by way of amendment to the Veterans Land Act.
In addition there will be, of course, the budget legislation-
Which, of course, has been disposed of.
-and the usual measure respecting the financing of the Canadian National Railways. Consideration is also being given to certain other measures of lesser importance.
Much of the legislation appearing in the list I have just mentioned is contentious, and the vast majority of it is still not before the house. The only items mentioned in this list which are now before the house are the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is under consideration by a committee, and the bill which is now under consideration in this house to establish a national energy board. All the rest-


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: And the Bretton Woods Agreement Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I agree there are some non-contentious matters which I have not time to deal with, such as the one the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has just mentioned. That matter is entirely non-contentious, and I can assure the minister at once that we will give the fullest co-operation to that matter in its passing. In addition to that, sir, there are two motions to go into supply. They may take two days, they may take one day, I do not know; that will be a matter for the house to determine.
What I deprecate in particular is this. If this legislation which was announced by the Prime Minister six weeks ago, much of it contentious, is brought down now, this legislation, a lot of it important, will be brought down in the last days of the session. I refer particularly to the federal-provincial taxsharing agreements. There is an example of an agreement upon which there has been a good deal of debate, that is true; but it seems to me that is a matter which should not under normal conditions take the time it has taken.
I say this to the government, with respect. I believe in my mind and in my heart that it is not the intention of the government to change in any way the formula that was established in that legislation. That being the case, why is it necessary to renew this agreement each year? Why is it not possible by one piece of legislation to dispose of it in one

Business of the House
session? That is why I say it is a contentious matter which comes before parliament each year.
I presume I will be told after I have resumed my seat that we take far too much time in discussing the matters which from time to time come before the house. But let me assure my hon. friends opposite that members on the government side also take up a great deal of time. I am not complaining about that; that is their right and their privilege. However, I can point to two or three debates where they did take up a great deal more time than we on this side of the house. That being the case I do not think complaint can be made that we are taking undue length of time.
In my opinion, sir, this motion is premature. It seems to me that the motion is aimed at ending the sittings of this house by a fixed date. I may be wrong in that assumption; if I am, then I will accept the correction. But what I think the house should be reminded of is that we on this side have a job to do. We feel that that job cannot be done within a few weeks. We feel that because of the legislation, contentious as much of it is, announced by the Prime Minister, because of the remaining departments which have not even yet been touched, and because of the committee work, most of which has not been reported upon, this motion is, as I say, premature.
I do hope the Prime Minister will accept these remarks in the spirit in which he made his opening remarks a moment ago. With that in mind I ask the Prime Minister if he will not give consideration to this suggestion, because I am sure that when he rose a while ago he rose with no other intention but that of being helpful. At least that is what I gathered from the tone of his remarks.
The suggestion I make is that until the majority of the committees have reported on their work for this session, this motion should be allowed to stand on the order paper. If that were done I am sure there would be a greater disposition on the part of those of us who sit on this side of the house to find ourselves in agreement with the government on a motion such as this at this stage of the session.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is true to say that this is approximately the usual stage during a session when a motion is brought forward to provide for morning sittings. However, I do believe that at least some hon. members in this house are slightly in error in their thinking and in their hope that being a member of parliament is really just a part time job. It seems to me

that as the nation expands and parliament has to deal each session with an increasing volume of legislation, the fact becomes more and more clear that being a member is a full time job.
If this is the case I think we should attempt to get away from the practice of trying to cram the work of the session into five or six consecutive months. Rather, the government in consultation with other parties in the house should consider whether or not the business of parliament can be more efficiently dealt with by a longer session and more frequent recesses. This would, of course, have the advantage of permitting the employees of the building, the members of the staff and the members of the House of Commons, to enjoy holidays during the summer months, which is the normal time when holidays are taken by most Canadians.
I also think that in closing the debate the Prime Minister should inform the house as to whether or not there are new pieces of legislation to be advanced during this session and, in general, whether there is to be any greater work load given parliament than we have been told about heretofore.
In fairness I should also say that this motion to a substantial degree is a compromise motion. It is not a motion to call for morning sittings five days a week, nor does it call for evening sittings five days a week or on Saturdays. Instead it is asking that parliament sit Wednesday and Thursday mornings as well as Friday evenings in addition to the regular hours of sitting. At this particular stage of the session and in view of the attitude of the parties generally as to how sessions should be managed, we feel this is an appropriate time to bring forward a motion of this nature.
We wish to point out, however, in the strongest possible terms that there is an excellent argument for those who say that committees of the house should not sit while the house is sitting. We know that certain committees are sitting when the house is sitting. I believe there should be a reluctance on the part of the members of all committees that are not now sitting while the house is sitting to accept this extra burden, at least for another couple of weeks until we see how the session progresses.
The greatest objection to this motion arises from the possibility that after this motion passes there might be a further endeavour to have more committees meet while the house is sitting. This would make the work of all hon. members of parliament completely impossible, and would bring parliament into critical view on the part of the Canadian public.

With these reservations and with the hope that the Prime Minister will give consideration to the suggestion we have made, we are prepared to give this motion our support.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is very little for me to add to what my colleague has said, but it seems to me the consideration that weighs most in our minds is the difficulty of combining committee work when there is so much of it in progress, with our duties in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister himself earlier in the session said it was not his intention to make impossible the reconciliation of the duties of committee members with their duties in the house, but with eight or nine committees sitting and with some of them sitting more than once a day it is extremely difficult if not impossible for members of the official opposition to do full justice to their work in the committees and in the house.
Having regard to what he said earlier in the session about this matter I would therefore ask the Prime Minister if he would not be fair enough to have another look at this situation next month in the light of the progress made by the committees, and if the progress that has been made is satisfactory a motion of this kind would surely be more acceptable to all hon. members of the house then than it is now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank all hon. gentlemen for the contributions they have made to the discussion of this very important matter. I fully understand the position that is advanced by the hon. member for Laurier. To summarize his words, he said there might be some who say we spend too much time discussing matters that come before the house. I do not belong to that school, nor have I ever adhered to the suggestion that beneficial discussion shall not take place on every measure that comes before the house.
Sometimes I think all of us are prone to error in that regard, in believing that prolixity and repetition take the place of full and careful consideration and deliberation on the matters that come before the house, but the latter is of the essence in the discharge of the responsibilities of parliament. I wish to do nothing that would in any way reduce the opportunity of those in the opposition to engage in the fullest discussion, nor do I wish to coerce the opposition in any way.
I was very impressed by the views expressed by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The group he represents is small in number, and naturally members of that group have
Business of the House
a variety of matters to discuss that would tax the energies of a group three or four times the size of the one in question.
In general our viewpoint is that we do want the fullest possible consideration. I do not want to be in the position of pressing upon the opposition the acceptance of this motion. The hon. member for Laurier said it looks like six weeks and possibly more. It is the responsibility of parliament to discuss and consider these matters to the full. There is no question of a target date such as he suggested. I for one would not to the slightest degree concur in any suggestion that we determine upon a target date and thereby fail to do what is required of us, so we can banish that thought.
Of course, whether the house takes until September is an open question. When sitting in opposition I was told that the length of the session is always determined by the opposition. The entire field of legislation has been set out, in so far as it is possible to do so, in the outline referred to by the hon. member for Laurier. Some matters may arise that at the moment cannot be contemplated, but with due regard to that possibility I may say that that which was set out some weeks ago represents the program of legislation which will be submitted to parliament.
Mention was made of the difficulty of attending committees while the house was sitting. This motion, as the hon. member for Assiniboia has said, is a compromise one. Instead of going the whole way, as has been the custom in the past, of providing in the beginning for sittings in the mornings throughout the week and on Friday nights, to begin with, the only possible interference with committees would be on Wednesday and Thursday. We will not sit on Wednesday evenings. Committees do not sit on Wednesday evenings or on Friday evenings; at least it was not my experience throughout the years that there was ever any desire for committees to sit particularly on Friday evenings.
However, hon. gentlemen opposite have taken very strong objection, as I say, to the course suggested. I think it would tend to meet the needs of the opposition to assure them that in every way they will have the fullest possible opportunity to thoroughly discuss the measures that will be brought before the house. The hon. member for Laurier, speaking for the official opposition, has taken a very strong stand on this.
I am not going to be put in the position of having a vote forced on the house and thereby the opposition take the stand that if it had not come to a vote things might have been different. The C.C.F. group are prepared to support this; the official opposition are not.

Business of the House
In the circumstances, therefore, I am going to suggest that we might possibly come to an agreement whereby in this motion, if the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Assiniboia would agree, we might alter the date from June 3 to June 10, thereby enabling both sides to get together; because I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not going to adopt the attitude that has been adopted in years past by which the majority in a matter such as this has been pitted against the opposition. I suggest an alternative in the spirit which was apparent in the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier.
By leave of the house I would ask, providing there is going to be support in that direction, that the amendment be made accordingly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the Prime Minister has suggested that the motion might be changed, perhaps I can say an additional word. The suggestion made by the Prime Minister is that the date of the motion should be postponed from June 3 to June 10. In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, this seems to me a reasonable compromise between the two points of view that were put forward this afternoon. I would ask the Prime Minister, in stating our agreement with this change, that everything possible be done to ensure that committee work should not be of a type and held at times which would make it impossible for members on this side to do their whole duty in the House of Commons itself. I mention that to the Prime Minister because he himself mentioned it this afternoon. I know it is in his mind. Perhaps I should also add that we are assuming, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is not proposing to bring in additional legislation at this stage.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to be clear on this. I have not anything in mind nor has any member of the government; but the hon. gentleman knows from his experience in the cabinet that there are occasions when matters arise which require attention. Should such a matter or matters arise they will be kept to a minimum, but I know of none at the moment that could arise. I would not expect that anyone would suggest that there is a complete undertaking that those eventualities should not be taken cognizance of today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I quite understand there may be an emergency which will require legislation. I would not try to suggest to the Prime Minister that that might not happen. All I am doing is mentioning those two difficulties. Having mentioned them, I am quite willing to tell the Prime Minister that as far as we are concerned the change he has suggested in this motion is satisfactory.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Just to make sure where we stand, I understand the hon. member is speaking to the proposed change from June 3 to June 10, before I ask the house for its unanimous consent.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to accept this compromise suggested by the Prime Minister. I think it is a good move by the Prime Minister, since apparently it is obtaining the acceptance of the official opposition. We would like to urge two things; one, all legislation that the government intends to introduce at this time should be put before parliament immediately; two, there should be no move within the next week, until at least June 10, to provide that any further committees of the house in fact sit while the house is sitting. If we can have this further period when no additional committees are meeting while the house is sitting and have a chance to see all the proposed legislation as soon as possible, we think these things will expedite the business of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the house give unanimous consent to the substitution of the figure "10" for the figure "3" as it stands in the motion now, so the motion will read, "That on Wednesday, June 10" instead of "June 3"?


John George Diefenbaker: So that there will be no misunderstanding I would like, if I may, with the consent of the house, to say this. If I understood him right the Leader of the Opposition asked that an undertaking be given that no legislation except any that is now on the order paper shall be introduced. That was not my undertaking. None additional to that referred to six weeks ago by myself, except under the circumstances mentioned, will be introduced.


Mr. Caron:: What about committees?
Motion as amended agreed to.
(Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENTS TO FARM LOAN ACT

Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to ask the Minister of Agriculture. There is in the speech from the throne a very interesting passage that has long held farmers' attention. It reads as follows:
You will also be invited to make a comprehensive review and revision of the legislation concerning farm credit, in order that credit may be more effective in assisting in the development and maintenance of an efficient and prosperous agriculture.

Can the minister inform us if he intends to introduce amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act at this session?


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you people do it at the time?
(Text):


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the hon. member correctly I think he asked about the improved farm credit scheme which it was predicted in the speech from the throne would be introduced at this session. That will be introduced.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether he is aware of the statement which is reported in the morning's press by the Montreal tourist and convention bureau, which is a very strong organization in the city of Montreal, concerning the airport at Dorval, in which it is said that the federal government alone is responsible for the delay in finishing the new terminal building at Montreal. The report goes on also to state:
Transport Minister Hees has made many statements indicating full speed ahead on the project, while actually there is no speed at all.
Has the minister seen this report, and would he care to comment on it?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I read it this morning. I can only again say to the hon. member for Laurier that the work on the Dorval airport terminal building is proceeding with all speed. It is expected that it will be completed next year and, as I pointed out, it is going ahead at a much faster pace than was the case when we took over two years ago.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question, having regard to the last part of the minister's statement. Does the minister realize that this report of the Montreal tourist bureau is confirmed by a Gallup poll taken in the province of Quebec, which indicates that the position of his own party has dropped by 21 percentage points in the last seven months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is taking advantage of the opportunity presented for the purpose of asking questions.
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



STATEMENT ON REPORTED IMPOSITION OF FINES ON AIR LINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Laurier directed a question to my colleague the Minister of Transport, relating to fines levied against two air lines at Gander for infraction of the quarantine regulations. This matter comes within my jurisdiction and I feel that my department's position should be made clear.
I can appreciate the air lines' desire to have their passengers go through quarantine inspection as quickly as possible, but for the protection of the public adequate arrangements must be made. The procedure adopted now that the new terminal is operating has not been criticized by most of the air lines and, in fact, is essentially the same as at major airports all over the world.
Difficulties centre around the refusal of pilots of certain air lines to arrange to have their passengers escorted into the terminal for clearance and customs by the route provided. This is their responsibility, and by their failure to co-operate they have caused a great deal of confusion for their own passengers and others using the terminal. Infractions were repeatedly pointed out by my officers, and as no improvement was forthcoming fines were levied against two air line companies.
I trust that as airport routine settles down, following the problems that were only to be expected with the start of operations in the new building, the air lines will be able to organize a more effective procedure.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of the statement he made earlier. Since the former practice of having a nurse board the plane and check passengers' vaccination certificates appears to be more acceptable to the air lines, is there any good reason why that practice should not be continued and, if not, would the minister give consideration to having this procedure reinstated?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to look into the suggestion of the hon. member, but I would point out that the procedure now being followed at Gander is the same procedure that is followed at all other international airports.

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



CAPE BRETON-REPOSSESSION OF HOUSEHOLD ESSENTIALS BY LOAN COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of a telegram I have received from Mr. William Marsh, president, district 26, united mine workers of America, Glace Bay, in which he states that finance companies in Cape Breton are repossessing household essentials such as kitchen stoves, bedroom suites, etc., and that affected miners will be unable to return to work when work is available. Would the minister be prepared to have the superintendent of insurance investigate this deplorable situation, or take other appropriate action?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to give a clear answer to an inquiry of this kind. We have not been furnished with the names of the companies, or any information whatever. These may possibly be companies that are under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction; but if we were furnished with adequate information we would certainly be glad to give the matter prompt attention.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for his statement. I shall endeavour to procure the information he has requested.



STATEMENT ON LOANS TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: On May 29, Mr. Speaker, on page 4146 of Hansard, the hon. member for Essex East is reported as asking me a question concerning the total loans then outstanding by the Minister of Finance to the unemployment insurance commission. Offhand, I indicated that the amount was "around $75 million". On May 14, at page 3645 of Hansard, I had given the details of the loans up to that date. Since that time there have been two additional loans, one on May 19 for $10 million and one on May 27 for $7 million. The total outstanding is, therefore, $72 million.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Minister of Labour if he can tell us whether or not Mr. Taylor, the conciliator, has returned to the dispute at the Polymer Corporation, and whether the minister has any report to make as to the progress of his

work and of the negotiations with respect to this strike, involving so many men who have been out of work for such a long time.


Mr. Murphy:: You are worried a lot about that.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed last week that Mr. Taylor had to leave the negotiation table for a few days in order to make a necessary trip to the west. I was also told that he would be back early this week. In answering a question last week I assumed that he would be back yesterday. However, I am told that he did not return as expected, but is probably there now. I have no further report on the progress that has been made, except to say that the talks that have been held up to now have shown progress.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of various statements made by the minister indicating an attempt to change his policy on agricultural stabilization prices by substituting thereto deficiency payments made directly to farmers, as was done in the case of milk, hogs and eggs, could the minister inform the house if farmers who enter into contracts with co-operatives will be eligible for deficiency payments?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I am clear as to what is behind the hon. member's question but certainly the deficiency payments we are going to make with respect to pork and eggs will be paid directly to the producer. If he is selling his products through a co-operative I think he will be in exactly the same position as though he were selling his products through an ordinary commercial concern.



REPORTED DROP IN EXPORT SHIPMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister now made further inquiries to corroborate, or otherwise, his statement yesterday that Canadian exports have not fallen since the opening of navigation? Would the

minister care to comment on the statistics in the weekly board of grain commissioners report which show that from April 22 up to May 20 exports this year are just 15.9 million bushels compared with 25.1 million bushels last year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure
whether the hon. member is seeking information or attempting to give it. If there was a question sandwiched between the two bits of information perhaps the minister would like to reply to it.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I will give a direct answer
without any sandwich, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Don't make it the boloney in
the sandwich.


Mr. Fulton:: You have supplied that.


An hon. Member:: You had better talk
about wheat, boy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope the remark of the
Minister of Justice got on Hansard. It may well be that exports of wheat during the month of April have been slightly lower than a year ago, but as I pointed out yesterday total export of wheat for the crop year up to the end of May is running just 9 million bushels below a year ago, and that still gives us an opportunity to reach our target of 300 million bushels, because we exceeded it last year by 16 million bushels.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether
he anticipates an improvement in Canada's export position in the weeks ahead from a drop of almost 40 per cent as compared with last year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We cannot accept any statement that there was a drop of 40 per cent.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since the opening of navigation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You do not look at these things week by week or anything like that. You take a long range view, which is unfamiliar to my hon. friend. The export position of Canada is very good all round, including wheat, and the prospects are very good for maintaining the record we established last year.



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. Has the minister seen the statement by United States defence secretary Neil McElroy before the United States House of Representatives appropriations committee that
Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian defence industry has been adversely affected by the government's decision to buy complete weapons systems from the United States?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that statement.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister have officials of his department who follow closely the proceedings of these United States committees?


George Randolph Pearkes: We have officers in the United States who observe the departments of the United States government.



FEDERAL-MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT IN HOUSE OF MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister, who is about to leave for the mayor's conference and who takes with him our good wishes for a safe flight to North Bay, if in the event that he intends in his speech tonight to accept the proposal of the municipalities assembled there that there should be called at once a conference of the provinces and municipalities, would the Prime Minister not consider it desirable to make that announcement in this house before he leaves?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has constructed an edifice of hypotheses on which to ask his question or perhaps to give an admonition, I am not sure which.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker; does the Prime Minister intend to make such an announcement tonight?


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister has always tried to assure that any announcements on matters of relevance to the house be made to the house.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister could answer the question I asked yesterday in regard to the Pine Point railway and the announcement made by the minister for northern affairs in the Powell River Digester to the effect that the government had decided to extend the railway?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I asked for the particular journal to which the hon. gentleman alluded. I believe it is on my desk, and after perusal I will make a statement.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: May I ask
a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Canada has made a gift of $10 million worth of flour to NATO, could he inform the house whether the Conservative members from Quebec were consulted and if they agreed to that gift of $10 million?


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND  INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION RESPECTING TERMS OF UNION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether he could tell the house how soon the government expects to be in a position to introduce the legislation to implement the terms of union with Newfoundland.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all of the legislative program, including the item in question, will certainly be before the house whenever the house is in a position to consider it. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that if each piece of legislation takes the number of days that the energy board bill has taken, then I am unable to predict how far in the future it will be before the legislation in question will be before the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister realize that until the payments are made under that legislation very serious interest charges are being made upon the taxpayers of Newfoundland?


John George Diefenbaker: I can only repeat what I said a moment ago. This legislation before the house has taken a very long time, but I have no complaint whatever. I am in such agreeable good humour that the house can take all the time possible, but the hon. gentleman is the last who should complain about certain favourite pieces of legislation he has in mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; I was not complaining at all, I was asking a simple and respectful

question of the Prime Minister. I do not believe he is called upon to lecture any hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has no question of privilege.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Since the Prime Minister is in such agreeable good humour, as he indicated a moment ago, would he consider giving the subsequent legislation that is to come before parliament first reading some days before he proposes bringing it on for second reading, so that we might have an opportunity to read and consider the bills before they are brought up for second reading?


John George Diefenbaker: That is the course of action this government always follows.


George James McIlraith: Except on the energy bill. NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


PROVISION FOR ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, ETC.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-49, to provide for the establishment of a national energy board-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 85-Regulations.
George James McIlraith: I believe there is an amendment before the Chair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to the amendment which is before the committee to clause 85, subclause 2. In the discussion of this clause, which is an exemption clause, yesterday the hon. member for Essex East said this, as reported at page 4229 of Hansard, when he was criticizing what he called a far-reaching clause:
Yet this present government, with less than two years in office, comes to parliament and puts before us a clause like this, the like of which perhaps no government in the history of Canada has ever tried to put before parliament.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that this type of exemption clause is not unfamiliar to the House of Commons. In 1955, when the hon. member for Essex East was a member of the government of that day, a meat inspection act was before the house; it is chapter 36 of the statutes of 1955. In it under the heading of "Regulations" there was a section, namely section 5, which reads in part as follows:
5. The governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations-

Then I read subparagraph (g) which is as follows:
(g) for exempting any person or meat product from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this act-
According to the argument of my hon. friend last night this destroys the act in whole. Then in the same year-


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was the chapter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was chapter 36 of the statutes of 1955. Then I have another reference for my hon. friend. It is chapter 47 in the same book of statutes, which is the International River Improvements Act. Section 3 of that act, dealing with regulations, reads as follows:
3. The governor in council may, for the purpose of developing and utilizing the water resources of Canada in the national interest, make regulations-
Then I read subparagraph (d) which is as follows:
(d) excepting any international river improvements from the operation of this act.
In the hon. member's argument that means that the act is destroyed by that exemption.
Then just to refresh his memory further may I draw attention to an act which, when I mention it, will perhaps stimulate his memory. I refer to the Food and Drugs Act, being chapter 38 of the statutes of Canada, 1952-53, introduced into this house by the then minister of national health and welfare, our genial friend the hon. member for Essex East. As he piloted that bill through the house he came across, under the heading "Regulations", section 24, which reads as follows:
24. (1) The governor in council may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect, and, in particular, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations-
Then I go to paragraph (j):
(j) exempting any food, drug, cosmetic or device from all or any of the provisions of this act and prescribing the conditions of such exemption;-
That bill was introduced into and passed by the House of Commons under the direction of the hon. member for Essex East, who now tells us that never before had a clause such as that which we have in this bill been put before the House of Commons. He himself put similar clauses before the House of Commons and they were passed by the house.
Then in the course of his argument the hon. member talked about the regulations. I dealt with that matter last night, but for the purpose of clarity may I repeat that the regulations by law, under the Regulations
National Energy Board Act, must be printed in the Canada Gazette and subsequently tabled in the House of Commons, a fact of which the hon. member was quite aware. When the debate was taking place on April 21, 1953, on the Food and Drugs Act, when the question was asked him about the regulations, as reported at page 4150 of Hansard he replied as follows-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend just help me by giving me the chapter of the Food and Drugs Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I beg the hon. member's pardon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend be kind enough to remind me of the chapter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Your famous act.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: The Food and Drugs Act. What chapter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Chapter 38 of the statutes of 1952-53. I am referring now to Hansard of April 21, 1953, when this Food and Drugs Act was under discussion and when the regulations were being dealt with, as reported at page 4150, where I read as follows:


Paul Joseph James Martin: The regulations are not in the bill. The regulations are contained in a very thick document which I table every year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is it. I tabled it every year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The regulations under any bill, if new, are tabled following their publication in the gazette.
I thought I should make that matter clear in order that those who are unfamiliar with the regulations may be aware of the situation. I realize that the hon. member for Essex East last night in the course of his remarks became a little bit carried away.
However, with regard to the amendment before the house may I say this. Considering the debate we have had on clause 85(2), we had earlier considered placing that subclause under clause 87, to which it applies more strictly. In the course of my remarks last night I indicated that this subclause 2 would become operative if and when parliament approved the following clause 87, and that subclause 2 had application largely to oil and matters pertaining thereto and not to gas. Consequently, in view of that situation I am suggesting that the amendment now proposed be accepted, namely that this subclause 2 be struck out.
But I want to go further and say to hon. members of the committee, so there will be no confusion, that when we come to clause 87 my colleague will move an amendment in somewhat different phraseology dealing with substantially the same exemptions. When

National Energy Board that amendment is moved to clause 87 the hon. member who has moved the present amendment, which is to strike out the new one, of course is at liberty to move a further amendment. But as the situation stands at the moment we are prepared to accept the present amendment now before the committee to strike out subclause 2 of clause 85.
In order to save time and trouble, with the consent of the committee I would suggest that the following words be added to that amendment, or at least that the amendment might read in this way:
That clause 85 be amended by striking out "(1)" after the figure "85" in line 34 on page 24 and striking out subclause (2) thereof on page 25.


Hazen Robert Argue: As the person who moved the original amendment I wish to thank the minister for the consideration the government has given to our contention that this paragraph should be deleted. We are extremely happy that the government is so moving. We shall take a look at the proposed amendment to clause 87 of the bill when we reach it. We feel-and I repeat what I have said before-that far too often throughout this bill the governor in council has maintained a power of veto, a power to set aside any regulations or any decisions of the board and to substitute therefor decisions and regulations of the cabinet.
We think that in general this is a bad procedure. Anything that will reduce the power of the cabinet to make a plaything of the board is most acceptable to us. Of course we shall have to see to what extent the government recovers this power when their proposed amendment to clause 87 is before the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure my hon. friend recognizes from what has been said already what satisfaction we derive from his acceptance of the argument we made last night. I can only say that what the minister has done now is consistent with what he called, as far as I am concerned, an argument with which I was carried away. However, that argument, along with observations made by others, has obviously had the kind of effect which we thought in the circumstances it should have on the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Reference was made to the Food and Drugs Act and to the section-section 16, I presume [DOT]-where the board is given power subject to the approval of the governor in council to make regulations. I am afraid the minister can hardly consider the Food and Drugs Act and what was done under section 16 as in any way a parallel to the complaint registered last night by me. In any event, assuming that my hon. friend's argument was correct,


and assuming I had been guilty of the very act I complained about last night, this would not of course in any way preclude me from taking the position I am taking now, any more than it precluded the hon. gentleman from taking a particular position in 1955 in connection with one of the many debates to which he made reference a few moments ago.
I have had the opportunity since we met last night of reading not only the observations of some of my hon. friend's colleagues in that debate, but more particularly the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he sat on this side as a private member of this house. In comparing what he said on that occasion with what I said last night I note a similarity of theme. But I congratulate the minister because he spoke about that theme much better, and I am sure with even greater force and fervour, than I did last night.
In any event, perhaps I may recall his words to him, because I realize his preoccupation with this bill and with other matters, and he has not had an opportunity of rereading his words. I think at a time like this where we are discussing such an important measure the minister would want to be reminded of words which my humble researches have disclosed. At page 4688 of Hansard for June 13, 1955, almost at the top of the page I find these words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They apply forcefully at the present time because we have so many new members in this house. The minister said:
I think it is incumbent upon the senior members of the house to be the foremost to defend the parliamentary system, to exercise moderation with respect to any suggested changes, and to restrain newcomers to the house when they appear to be impatient with the parliamentary system.
That was very good advice in 1955, and undoubtedly last night I was suffering somewhat from an impatience to see that our parliamentary system was not in any way violated.


Mr. Lambert:: You were making floss candy last night.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was that?


Norman Platt Lambert: I said you were making floss candy last night.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not heard what my hon. friend said, but I am sure it will bear waiting and I will read it in Hansard tomorrow. Further down on the same page the minister said:
Actually he is attempting to reverse the process. Normally ministers come to parliament and ask for extension of their powers or for special powers for

special purposes and parliament examines the situation, makes the grant of power and withdraws it when the crisis has subsided.
There is another quotation, but I will not put it on the record at this time as there may be some opportunity later on, unless my hon. friend finds it desirable to take the proper course which he has just announced.
Before I take my seat I can only say to my hon. friend that I have no doubt that the value of discussion, the value of persuasion and debate, has had its effect today as a result of the insistent position taken by members of the opposition last night, who looked upon this particular subclause 2 in clause 85 as one that violated our concept of what was the proper relationship between the executive and parliament. That my hon. friend has accepted our proposal is, I say, the best demonstration one could have of the value of parliament and of the opportunity of continued free discussion, and of the recognition by the executive of its obligation and its traditional constitutional relationship to parliament itself.


The Deputy Chairman:: Has the hon. member for Assiniboia the unanimous consent of the committee to change his amendment to read as follows: Mr. Argue moves:
That clause 85 be amended by striking out "(1)" after the figure "85" in line 34 on page 24 and striking out subclause (2) thereof on page 25.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I also want to express my pleasure at the agreement of the minister to the amendment. As I indicated yesterday, the people in the lower mainland of British Columbia have been very much concerned for some considerable time now at the realization that natural gas was being exported and supplied to United States wholesalers at a lower price than was being charged for the same product to our own British Columbia consumers. Representations were made to the royal commission on energy, and the royal commission has roundly condemned the practice of the Westcoast Transmission Company.
In the bill as it was originally before us authority was being granted to the energy board to consider and determine the price to be charged by an applicant for gas or power exported by him, and the energy board had the responsibility of assuring itself that the price to be charged by an applicant for any natural gas to be exported was reasonable in relation to the public interest. What we were afraid of was that the cabinet would have the authority to grant an exemption to such a company as the Westcoast Transmission Company, and we are now very happy
National Energy Board to note that the cabinet does not want the authority to grant such an exemption.
As consumers of natural gas in the lower mainland of British Columbia our responsibility now is to present to the national energy board the same arguments that were presented to the Borden commission, and we hope the national energy board will realize, as did the Borden commission, that the supplying of our natural heritage to those outside our borders at a lower cost than that charged our own people is not in the public interest. We are now assured that once we can show the energy board that Canadians should not pay any more for their natural heritage than outsiders, the cabinet will not interfere by allowing an exemption to such a corporation as the Westcoast Transmission Company.
I note that the minister, in agreeing to the removal of this right of the governor in council, is intending to add something to clause 87. We shall have to look at this very closely when we come to that stage because there have been instances where Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company Limited has sold oil to refineries in Washington for less money than has been charged our own refineries in Burnaby. We feel that if at all possible a situation of that kind ought to be avoided as well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have one question to put to the minister. Can the minister assure the committee that if this amendment is adopted there will be no way in which any gas or electricity exporters can be exempted by order in council under any other provisions of the bill?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I believe
this question should be deferred until we reach clause 87 when I will suggest a new amendment. If the hon. member would raise his question then I believe we could answer it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot have made my question clear in that case, Mr. Chairman. Without regard to what there may be in clause 87, which after all refers exclusively to oil, my question did not relate to oil but to exports of gas and electricity. I just wanted to be assured that once this amendment was adopted there was no other provision anywhere in the bill as it now stands that would permit the governor in council-I am not saying the board but the governor in council -to exempt any exporter of gas or electricity from the requirements of part VI of the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I misunderstood the hon.
member. It is quite true that clause 87 will refer specifically to oil. The question was

National Energy Board under what circumstances might an exemption be allowed in view of the fact that we are striking out this exemption clause in subclause 2.
It is difficult to say categorically that there will be no exemption of some sort or other in the future and I believe clause 81 would be the governing clause in case it seemed advisable to make some exemption. That would have to be stated in the regulations which would be published in the Canada Gazette and tabled in the House of Commons and everyone would know exactly what was being undertaken. I could not say at this stage that something in the way of an exemption might not be permitted depending on the circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that the minister would agree that the governor in council cannot make regulations that will have any legal effect unless they have a legislative foundation. That is to say there must be something in the bill that empowers the governor in council. What I am asking the minister is if there is anything anywhere in this bill that will, once we adopt this amendment, give the governor in council power in any circumstances to make exemptions so far as gas and electricity are concerned from part VI of the bill and, if so, what are they?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, elsewhere
in the bill there is no exemption. There are certain restrictions which might occur under clauses 81 and 82 when licences are issued.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the nature of what the minister has in mind? I am afraid I do not understand what he has in mind.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We could give an example of that. 1 refer to the case of an emergency. Not very long ago a breakdown in a supply line occurred and an emergency import permit had to be granted to bring gas in from the United States until a cleaning station was repaired. That importation of gas occurred over a period of just a few days. An emergency like that is what I had in mind where you have to do things rather quickly but there is no other exemption clause in the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Even in an emergency
of that sort there would have to be some kind of legal authority to permit action to be taken. I would apprehend that the legal authority would be the board.
Let me put my question in another way. Is there any provision anywhere in the bill whereby the governor in council can dispense with the board in so far as the exports or imports of gas and electricity are concerned?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The answer to that is no, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Chairman:: Shall the clause as amended
carry?


George James McIlraith: There is another point in connection with this clause that I want to raise. Perhaps I should read the relevant part of the clause before making my argument. The clause now reads:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this part and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations respecting (b) the duration of licences, not exceeding 25 years, the quantities that may be exported or imported under licences and any other terms or conditions to which licences may be subject.
The point I want to deal with is that under the existing legislation it has been the practice to limit the duration of licences for the export of electricity to one year. I believe that to be a fact. Of course, permits for the exportation of gas are not limited as to time, as I understand it, or at least they do not terminate after a year. There may be some correction in that regard but that is my understanding of the present method of issuing export licences.
With respect to gas, however, because of the nature of the product and in order to finance the enterprise and indeed to have the type of contract we want entered into it is probably necessary that an export permit be for a longer duration than one year. But as to electricity, I am somewhat concerned with granting the power to grant licences for a longer period at one time than one year.
As was clearly illustrated in the discussion last night on another clause by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the electric power that is usually exported is surplus power. I can see no consideration that would arise that would demand that licences for the export of electrical energy be for a longer period than one year. Indeed, with respect to electric power there is a danger of having electricity exported from Canada which we should be using as a basis for our own development, instead of merely exporting the surplus which by the nature of the product is not likely to be nearly as extensive as in the case of gas.
The export permit for electricity is incidental to the development and operation of the plant for the use of Canadians whereas the export of gas in certain areas may be a major undertaking in its own right, the rights and interests of Canadians having been protected through other means by gas supplied from other areas.

One way to assure development of Canadian industry of course, is the permit for the export of such gas, bearing in mind that the protection of the Canadian interest is assured by supply from other areas, but no such case or argument exists when we are dealing with hydroelectric energy. I therefore propose moving an amendment to provide for the limitation of the electricity export permit to one year. Before doing so, I want to know whether the minister has any real case to make for the change in the practice with respect to the export of electrical energy?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think it is well that the hon. member for Ottawa West has raised this question because it is an important one. He is quite right. For many years now electrical power exports have been on the basis of annual export licences. I anticipate that that will be the case with regard to most of our hydroelectric stations in Canada where surplus power goes across the border. At the present time in quantity it is very limited. Six per cent of the total amount of hydroelectric power produced in Canada is exported, and exported on the basis of an annual licence. But there are two developments which are likely to take place in the future which might change that picture. I think there would be a great reluctance on the part of the energy board to grant a licence for more than the present arrangement of one year unless some very large development of electric power took place, as could happen out in western Canada. The negotiations taking place now with regard to the Columbia river is a case in point. There might be an arrangement between the two countries where in exchange for some advantage to Canada electrical power produced on that great river system might be exported to the United States on a licence basis longer than one year.
The second development which might take place in the future is in thermal power plants which might, using coal in Alberta, in British Columbia or in other provinces in Canada, produce electricity for export beyond the requirements in Canada. These are two things which might influence the energy board to grant licences longer than on a one-year basis. Then, in connection with either of the two possibilities that I have mentioned, for financing purposes a guarantee extending over a 20 or 25-year period of export of electricity might be necessary if the company were to become operative. That is the reason for not making the section here restrictive in so far as hydroelectric power is concerned.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his statement on this point. It
National Energy Board seems to me that there is such a great danger of the hydroelectric power being alienated from the use of Canada through the grant of a long term export licence that we should have some restriction on it. The two examples the minister gave in asking for this authority for the board are examples that, while they are of a major nature are not affected by this provision. I would point out to him that the hydroelectric power from the Columbia river is not sufficiently developed to warrant us granting the permission now, and I am going to suggest that if the need arises there for a long term permit the government can come back to parliament and ask that that subject be dealt with specially. The same thing would apply to coal. If there is electricity developed from coal and the requirement, in order to finance such a development, is for a longer term permit, it is a subject matter that should come back for discussion in parliament. Both of these examples are of such a nature that they require discussion in parliament.
For some 50 years now parliament has been very jealous to retain control over the export of hydroelectric energy, and I think the debates over the years show the correctness of that position. It has been a position maintained by all governments. I therefore suggest that this clause should be amended and I accordingly move the following amendment:
That clause 85, subclause 1(b) be amended by adding after the words "twenty-five years" the words "for hydrocarbons and not exceeding one year for power".
This will, I think, accomplish the objective I have sought to indicate we consider necessary. It seems to me it is desirable and the subject of the export of power is so important that it should not be given away to this board, and that if the necessity arises in the future for a longer export licence than the one year, the matter should come back to parliament.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I represent a constituency which is particularly interested in the development of the water resources of the Columbia. I was very interested in the minister's remarks and also in the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West. As the minister no doubt knows, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company has for some years sought a licence to export some 75,000 kilowatts to the United States. That licence has been refused because the whole question is related to the proper settlement of all issues surrounding the development of the hydro resources of the Columbia on a basis of equity between Canada and the United States. What interests me particularly is

National Energy Board this. If this bill is passed and if the clause is carried as it is printed in the bill, would the national energy board have the right or the power to grant such a licence even for a period of one year? No one today has even thought it wise, under the particular circumstances that exist on the Columbia river, to grant a licence for even one year. Would this national energy board have the right to issue a licence for such export for a period of one year? If so, will the minister explain what would be the procedures in this respect? Is there any relationship in the administration of this legislation between the national energy board and the international joint commission and, of course, the government of the day in question? This is a very important aspect of this legislation. I oppose the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to say a few words in support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ottawa West. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works will recall that just about the time I first came to Ottawa-it was not long after he first came to Ottawa-this was a most lively issue in politics, and it had repercussions that are still not forgotten in some parts of the country. From the time that the parent act of the electricity and fluid exportation act was first enacted in 1907-that is over 50 years ago, as the hon. member said-parliament has been very jealous and all governments have been very jealous of the right to export electric power. The legislation gave the power to the governor in council and-I anticipate that the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Trade and Commerce might remind me of that, and I know it to be true-every government bound itself by a self-denying ordinance not to grant these licences for more than one year at a time. I know that the Gordon commission did suggest that circumstances might well arise when power could, in the national interest, be exported for a longer period but it does not seem to me that we should make a change in general legislation of this sort in a lighthearted way and that we should wait until an actual situation arises.
This matter is of compelling importance to this country because hydroelectric energy is one respect in which we really have a competitive advantage over the United States. I am trying to be as moderate and persuasive as possible about this but it does seem to me that the government should accept the amendment, make formal what has been the practice up to now and remove any temptations
par. Herridge.]
that there might be to any future government to take hasty action which might commit the country and be a source of very great regret in the future.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, ordinarily I
would not take part in the discussion of this bill as it is being put through the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. However, the amendment raises a point which is of vital importance to the province of British Columbia and if it should carry it might be disastrous to that province. The position at the moment with regard to the Columbia is that after many years of wrangling and of impossibility of getting within any distance at all of agreement with the United States concerning the development of power on the Columbia river we have now been able to make great strides.
Hon. members will remember that in December of last year I made a statement as acting prime minister concerning the possibility of reaching agreement with the United States, and in that statement it was suggested that the international joint commission should be given the task of working out the details of an agreement for the payment of downstream benefits arising out of power developed on that river. The United States government agreed to this suggestion and for some months now the commission has been working very well in the direction of reaching an agreement on the payment of downstream benefits.
Not only has there been co-operation between Canada and the United States but there has also been excellent co-operation between the federal government and the provincial government. A policy committee has been established on the ministerial level between the two governments. That committee met in Ottawa some weeks ago and it met again in Victoria on Friday last. The two federal ministers on that committee are the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and myself. Unfortunately I was unable to go west for the last meeting. But they had another good meeting at which the ministers and officials of both governments co-operated in a splendid spirit to work out the proposals that should be submitted on behalf of Canada to the international joint commission. I believe there has been a meeting of the international joint commission within the last two or three days. I believe they met in New York on May 31.
Fundamental in this whole question is that Canada shall get back power produced in the United States as downstream benefits for the storage of water upstream on the Columbia river in British Columbia. This is where the cheapest power will come from. I would say that power cannot be produced in any other

way anywhere on the North American continent that will compete with it as to price. What position are we going to be in if we write into our statute that Canada can give an export permit only for one year and yet we are expecting to get power back from the United States by way of downstream benefits? They will write into their law just as tight a restriction as we write into our law and this very provision, if it should be accepted by the house, might very well be taken by the United States authorities as being an attempt to hamper negotiations or to cut down on the terms of any agreement. That is a position in which Canada simply cannot afford to be put.
This is the biggest development that has ever been possible in the province of British Columbia. It is a huge development which will involve the expenditure of perhaps a billion dollars in Canada when all of the projects have been installed. But the very foundation on which this development rests is downstream benefits from the plants on the Columbia in the United States of America, and I do suggest that to put in an amendment of this kind would be most unwise.
Furthermore, this works both ways. There is a plant owned by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company on the Pend Oreille river, a tributary of the Columbia, just a few miles north of the border. Why they built that plant there I never could understand when there was such a prohibition against exporting power. There they have a large plant and there is a possibility of a big increase in the size of the plant. All the possible installations have not been made, and sooner or later some of that power will have to be exported to the United States. It is produced because of storage on the Pend Oreille river in the United States. That river rises in the United States and flows through Canada for a few miles. In those few miles this plant has been built, so that there you have exactly the opposite position to that which you find on the main stem of the river.
When all these projects on the Columbia are installed power may have to be exported from other Canadian plants, say at Mica creek. Should there be a big power project installed there I doubt whether all the power would be required in British Columbia at that time. Some of it might have to be exported to the United States for the time being.
The Conservative party is the last party in the country to want to adopt any policy which would be against Canada's interests in so far as dealings with the United States are concerned. The whole history of the party proves that, but in this case I submit it would be folly to adopt the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ottawa West. I 66968-9-270
National Energy Board realize that he puts it forward with the best of motives, but he puts it forward without an understanding of the facts of life in 1959 in the western part of Canada.


George James McIlraith: That is a pretty strong
statement.


Howard Charles Green: That is my belief. He simply does not understand how vital this is to those of us who happen to come from western Canada. I would hope that for the sake of merely doing something which was done in 1907 the committee would not see fit to adopt this amendment. Policies have to be changed as conditions change. This is a case where a change becomes necessary.
We have been very co-operative in dealing with the amendments put forward by the two parties in opposition. I think that they can see now that there is no evil intent behind this bill. We are trying to set up a national energy board which will be able to give leadership in the handling of these sources of energy in Canada. The clause which is now under review has been worded with that main objective always in mind. I do suggest to hon. members that the provisions of the clause as they now read are sensible provisions and should not be altered in the way suggested by the hon. member for Ottawa West.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if I might raise one question with the Minister of Public Works, as an easterner who does not agree that all the facts of life are within the exclusive purview of those who have the fortune to come from British Columbia. He will have noticed that I was careful to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he had any special reason for changing the practice with respect to the exportation of power. He would have noticed that if he had been paying attention.
My question is this: I share his view as to the importance of the development of the Columbia river. I have, perhaps, some different opinions on one or two of the details concerning how it should be done, but as to its importance I quite share his view. According to my understanding, it is going to be necessary, when that development comes to the stage of being carried out, to come to the parliament of Canada for special legislation to authorize what will require to be done. If that is the case, I do not see why general legislation which has protected the interests of so much of this country and so many of its 17 million people should be changed for the sake of meeting that one case which is going to have to come before parliament in any event. If it is not going to have to come before parliament, I wish the minister would clarify the position of the government on that point. I have always

National Energy Board understood the Columbia river project would be the subject of legislation before this parliament. In any event, I am subject to correction on the point and I wish he would deal with that narrow point before we pursue the argument on the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The members of this group take the strongest exception to this amendment. We support the arguments of the Minister of Public Works. It is not necessary for me to restate the situation because it was covered very fully, and from our point of view, exactly. In our opinion the acceptance of this amendment would be most disastrous in view of the great importance of the development of the Columbia to British Columbia and the country as a whole.


George James McIlraith: May I ask a question of the hon. member for Kootenay West?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


George James McIlraith: Does he believe the Columbia river project has to be brought before parliament before coming to the final stages of development?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, that may be so, but when the giving of authority to a board to limit the export of power to a one year period is part of the statutes of Canada, representatives of another government or any persons negotiating with this government or the I.J.C. would have in mind the fixed period of one year, in the statute.
Mr. Chairman, 1 was saying that we have made such excellent progress in recent years by resuming negotiations for an equitable distribution between Canada and the United States of the benefits of the Columbia, and with the change in the atmosphere between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada, all of us who are very interested in this question are most anxious that nothing is done to disturb the excellent progress on this question that has been made between Canada and the United States and the excellent relationship that has been developed in considering this question as between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment was introduced by members of the Liberal party as a result of some ignorance of the importance of this question-


George James McIlraith: Your understanding is quite wrong.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and the relationship of it to the situation on the Columbia with which we are so concerned. I suppose this results from the fact that they have not any representatives from British Columbia to keep them
IMr. Mcllraith.]
informed of the matters that are of particular importance to British Columbia, and particularly the Columbia river. I suggest that if the former member for Coast-Capilano were in this house he would join with us in taking strong exception to the amendment proposed.
I suggest we can understand that this amendment was proposed with the best of intentions, but in ignorance. After listening to the explanation of the Minister of Public Works and noting our concern, and realizing that standing together on this question we know what is best for the people of British Columbia and for the development of the hydro resources of British Columbia and Canada, perhaps the hon. gentleman would rise in his place and withdraw the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I imagine that the reason the hon. member for Kootenay West has spoken in the way he has is that his party has not any representatives in this house anywhere east of North Bay. He cannot help but raise in the minds-


Hazen Robert Argue: How did you do west of North Bay?


John Whitney Pickersgill: A lot better than you did east of North Bay. You have zero east of North Bay and we still have members, including my seatmate, west of North Bay. We have better prospects too. However, Mr. Chairman, I suspect that I am a little out of order.
I wanted to deal quite seriously with the serious, but I think mistaken argument put forward by the Minister of Public Works. The minister knows quite well, even if the hon. member for Kootenay West may not, that it would not be possible for Canada to embark on an enormous scheme like the Columbia scheme without legislation; that is quite clear to anyone. It does seem to me that at that time or at the time that any other project, even a much smaller project which may be in the national interest, is brought before parliament, there will be an opportunity to alter the policy if that is desirable in the national interest.
After all, it has been a time-honoured and historic policy of the two major parties, at any rate up until now, that there should be no licence for the export of hydroelectric power for a period of more than a year at a time. Any change should be made in the presence of a concrete problem, and not to weaken what, after all, is to some degree a bargaining advantage. I would remind the hon. gentleman, who boasts about his vision stopping at the rockies, and who says he knows best what the people of British Columbia want, that after all we are legislating

for all the people of Canada and not just for the people of British Columbia.
There might easily be aroused in the minds of some of us a suspicion that some of the valuable power in other parts of the country was going to be exported by a government some day without coming to parliament in order to facilitate something being done in British Columbia. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the present government has any such thought in mind; I am sure they have not any such thought in mind and I hope there would never be a government that would have such a thought. But the Minister of Public Works will recall that it is not very many years ago that the government of British Columbia, under the present premier, with respect to the Columbia river was going to do something of which the minister strongly disapproved and which he considered was not in the national interest. We should not make legislation just for this government or for a hypothetical situation. We should make legislation in the light of all the facts. I suggest that no present case has been put forward for changing the historic policy of this country in this respect over the last fifty years.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should just like to say one further word on this matter. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate knows as well as does anyone here that one parliament can change what another parliament has done. Hence even if you write everything into statutes you are not protecting the future forever, for you do not know what might happen.
The hon. member is quite right in saying that the Canadian people and parliament have been very jealous with regard to their rights concerning the export of electricity. That statement is true. I have read the story of electricity over the last fifty years. Parliament has taken extreme care to see that there was no carelessness in the export of electricity to the disadvantage of Canada.
The hon. member for Ottawa West was incorrect in stating that the annual licence was in legislation and that we were now changing legislation by this clause in the bill that is before us. That is not so. In the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act there is nothing that restricts the export of electric power to one year. It is part of the regulations.
May I say one further word. Although there has been a good deal of discussion with regard to the development of hydroelectric power, I mentioned the fact-and I want to emphasize it again-that there is great opportunity ahead of Canada in the development of electric power by thermal stations 66968-9-270J
National Energy Board using our abundant supplies of coal. I have knowledge of a proposed development scheme of that kind where action is necessary in order that the proposal may be carried a step forward. The financing of that proposition is like the financing of a gas pipe line or an oil pipe line. It must be on a long term basis, extending over twenty years or twenty-five years. Unless the authority is given to the national energy board to have licences running up to twenty-five years it seems to me that a development such as the one I have heard about could not take place. Here again we are leaving the matter flexible.
We are leaving it to the national energy board to weigh the facts, to size up the situation and to make its decision; but we are not restricting them to a one-year matter in so far as electric power is concerned. We are expecting that they will be just as careful as Canadians have been in the last fifty years with the export of our power resources and that they will be just as careful as any member of this chamber would be. But why put into legislation restrictive clauses when you cannot be sure of the developments that are ahead of us? It seems to me that these two examples that we have used this afternoon give weight to the suggestion that the clause should remain as it is printed.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 14; nays, 46.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 86-Penalties.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Subclause 1 of clause 86 reads as follows:
(1) Every person who violates any of the provisions of this part or the regulations made under this part is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction as provided in the Criminal Code.
I presume that the persons who would violate the provisions of this part would be officers of a company, agents of a company or employees of a company. Can the minister explain how these penalties would be applied? If it was an official of the company or an agent of the company who did so, would not the company itself be guilty? From reading the section I am not quite clear as to just how it would operate with respect to the application of penalties.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is a hypothetical question. You cannot answer that question clearly and concisely until you have the facts as to who committed the offence.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What I mean is this. The clause provides that a person who violates the
4254	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board provisions or regulations is punishable on summary conviction as provided in the Criminal Code. Would the company itself be guilty or would it be officers of the company or agents of the company or employees of the company?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is possible that any of the categories mentioned might be guilty of an offence under this act. But there again the facts would have to be known before we could determine the matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But it would be persons; you could not escape the penalties under this act by the company being charged?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not quite sure whether we follow the hon. gentleman. The offence could be committed by the company or by the officials acting for the company. The company could be charged, but it would be the officials of the company who would have to answer the charge.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, that would indicate, then, as I read it, that on summary conviction you would have violated some very important provisions of this part and get actually a very small fine indeed, and if it were a company it would be inconsequential as a form of punishment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If it is a company that violates some of the regulations, we have clause 84 which provides for revocation and suspension of licences and which reads in part:
-if, in the opinion of the board, the person to whom it was issued has violated or failed to comply with any term or condition thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 87-Extension of part to oil.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on clause 87 I would like to make a few introductory remarks and then ask my colleague to put an amendment before you which I judge hon. members would be able to study between now and the conclusion of the supper recess.
When I was discussing this clause the other day, at the conclusion of the second reading debate last Thursday, there was considerable discussion and criticism on the part of hon. members opposite. At that time I said there was no concealment intended, that there was no intention to seize arbitrary powers, and then I went on in this way, as reported on page 4114 of Hansard:
If it seems advisable at some subsequent date to proclaim clause 87, the document which does that will be immediately tabled in the House of Commons and debate permitted with regard to that action.


Then the member for Ottawa West asked: How would debate on that document to proclaim be permitted? Under what procedure?
Then I went on:
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.
It is in order to make it clear in the bill that that situation will prevail that the amendment which hon. members will hear of in a minute or two is going to be proposed. Quite a bit of reference has been made to the 1955 debate, and the opposition has praised us for the way in which we, then in opposition, upheld the rights of parliament, and we shall continue in that noble cause.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What the minister means is that we were reminding him of his eloquent words.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My hon. friends opposite have learned so much from that debate in 1955, which incidentally will go down as one of the most historic debates in the life of our country, because from that time began the decline and subsequent fall of the Liberal party. In that defence production debate, after we had pressed the government very hard, the prime minister of the day, Mr. St. Laurent, finally came before us and indicated to us how regulations published under that Defence Production Act might be discussed in the House of Commons, the very type of thing which we were discussing the other night. In the interval I have looked up the method by which that was done, and we propose incorporating that in the amendment which my colleague will now propose to the chair.


Howard Charles Green: I move:
That clause 87 be amended by adding thereto the following subclauses:
"(3) The governor in council may by regulation exempt any class of oil or oil products or any area from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this part.
(4) A proclamation issued under this section shall be laid before both houses of parliament as soon as may be after it is issued, and a notice of motion in either house signed by ten members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that house within seven days of the day the proclamation was laid before that house, praying that the proclamation be revoked, shall be debated in that house at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in that house was made; and if both houses of parliament resolve that the proclamation be revoked, it shall cease to have effect and the provisions of this part shall thereupon cease to be applicable to oil."


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, an amendment to the minister's motion very quickly comes to my mind. He suggested ten members. I think that under the rules of this house if five members rise a division is held. In most instances five members can call for votes on various stages in debate. Certainly for a group of our size five members would be more acceptable. I merely ask the minister to take that into consideration. I think the purpose he has in mind is to allow a political party in this house to call for such a debate.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Speaker:: As there are a number of divorce bills standing for second reading, is it the wish of the house to have them taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. R. J. McCleave moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill SD-275, for the relief of Greta Liben-stein Goldfeder.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-276, for the relief of Andre Maurice Petit.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-277, for the relief of Iris Marion Saunders Robbins.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-278, for the relief of Eleonora Dudarowa Shukoff.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-279, for the relief of Jeannette Belanger Ross.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-280, for the relief of Evelyn Isbit-sky Goldenberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-281, for the relief of Salla Weisman Stopnicki, otherwise known as Sally Weisman Stopnicki.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-282, for the relief of Ovila Rivet. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-283, for the relief of Bella Valinsky Segal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-284, for the relief of Alexander Pavlovich.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-285, for the relief of Catherine Anne Gillis Roper.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-286, for the relief of John Robertson Low.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-287, for the relief of Barbara Ann Foam Armstrong, otherwise known as Barbara Ann Foam Copan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-288, for the relief of Ruth Mary Morgenstem Usher.-Mr. McCleave.
Canada Elections Act
Bill SD-289, for the relief of Eddie Ronald Joe Willard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-290, for the relief of Michel Alphonse Dubois.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-291, for the relief of Jean Huard DeRoberval___Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-292, for the relief of Phyllis Ann Applebaum Isenberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-293, for the relief of Zita May Pardoe McCall.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-294, for the relief of Monique An-dree Seguin Tyson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-295, for the relief of Bertha Sylvia Berman Maxwell____Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-296, for the relief of Margery Fletcher Dennis Phillips.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-297, for the relief of Margaret Helen Dawson MacKenzie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-298, for the relief of Eleanor Gwyneth Henley Norman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-299, for the relief of Marie Pauline Primeau Landreville.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-300, for the relief of Ellen Wilk Tuke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-301, for the relief of Rhoda Lillian Rabinovitch Katchan.-Mr. McCleave.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howard for the second reading of Bill No. C-13, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the mover of this bill had in mind taking it as an adjunct to Bill No. C-15, to amend the Indian Act, because the purpose of Bill No. C-13 is in effect to take out of the present provisions of the Canada Elections Act those restrictions which presently exist in so far as they prohibit an Indian as defined in the Indian Act from casting his vote at a federal election.
On June 10, 1958 a somewhat similar bill designed to amend the Indian Act was before the house and I made certain remarks in connection with our consideration of that bill which I submit to the house showed that the amendments sought thereunder were impossible of implementation because they had not considered deeply enough the legal status, in effect, of the Indian people whom the legislation was intended to affect.
I think it important for the house to consider before passing on this legislation just

Canada Elections Act
what is the legal status of an Indian. The Indian Act is chapter 149 of the revised statutes. Under this act an Indian is defined as a person who pursuant to the act is registered as an Indian or is entitled to be registered as an Indian. In section 5 the Indian Act sets forth that an Indian register shall be maintained by the department which shall consist of band lists and general lists in which there shall be recorded the name of every person who is entitled to be registered as an Indian.
A qualification to the definition of an Indian can be found in section 12, subsection 1, paragraph (b) of the Indian Act. There it is set forth that a woman who is married to a person who is not an Indian is not entitled to be registered as an Indian. Under section 14 of the act a woman who is a member of the band ceases to be a member of that band if she marries a person who is not a member of the band; in other words, if she marries either a white person or a person who is an Indian entitled to be registered but in another band. The point I wish to make in this regard is that an Indian woman who marries a white person ceases to be a person registered as an Indian upon marriage. When her husband dies, however, her status could well be argued to revert.
The explanatory notes of Bill No. C-15 read as follows:
The purpose of this bill is complementary to another bill of this session to amend the Canada Elections Act. It is to provide that Indians, as defined in this act-
I submit that those words are important, "as defined in this act". I continue:
-shall be entitled to vote at federal elections without detracting from their hereditary, treaty, aboriginal, or other similar rights.
In order for this suggested legislation to have effect at all the Indian whom it purports to touch must be an Indian as defined in the Indian Act. I have attempted to show that the definition as it presently stands in the Indian Act falls somewhat short of being an all-inclusive definition.
In that regard the companion legislation, Bill No. C-17, does not by its provision cover this eventuality. In considering what is the legal status of a Canadian Indian it should be pointed out that not all so-called Canadian Indians have special legal status as Indians. I have already attempted to show that in order to have that status an Indian must be registered with the federal Indian affairs department in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Act as it now stands.
There are three groups of so-called Indian people in Canada who are not eligible to be

registered at all and therefore do not have Indian status. They are the Indians whose ancestors have left the Indian reserve or who do not have a residential status on the reserve; the Indians who have mixed blood in their veins-and of course we are not concerned with this group in our discussion- and married women who by reason of marrying away from a band cease to be regarded as Indians.
Those persons who are not registered as Indians have a great many problems both socially and financially and very unhappy problems they are, too. The courts through the years have held that when these Indians are off the reserve the laws of the dominion and the province shall apply to them, while on the reserve the laws of the dominion and the province shall apply unless they are in direct conflict with the rights given by a treaty or by the Indian Act itself. I shall attempt to show the nature of this problem if hon. members will bear with me.
Both by treaty and by the Indian Act the Indian is given a legal status which is inferior to that of the ordinary Canadian citizen. Perhaps this is just as opportune a time as any to say that the hon. member who moved this bill certainly has my full support because the principle he is seeking to have established through the bill is a proper one. The Indian is just as much if not more a Canadian citizen than any of us and certainly the right to vote in a federal election should be his. The Eskimo people should also have the inalienable right to vote.
There are approximately 165,000 treaty Indians in Canada today according to a recent count, one-half of whom live in eastern Ontario. This entire group is a minority in our midst and as I said the Indians suffer from a greatly inferior legal status. I submit that the blame for this situation does not lie entirely with the white man alone; the red man, the Canadian Indian, is just as responsible for his lack of adequate legal status today. This is a product of history and in order to examine why this is so I propose to refer to some of that history very briefly.
The French by the Treaty of Capitulation of 1760 and the Treaty of Paris in 1763 admitted the Indians' claims to hunting rights and to land. In 1790 the English began taking surrenders of land from the Indians, paying money and wampum for these lands. In 1792 Governor Simcoe surrendered a crown grant of land to the Indians of the Six Nations in return for a surrender of a large area of land over which that tribe had dominance. In eastern Canada these capitulations and exchanges of land were called "surrenders",

and in some cases were crown grants. In other cases the title was held for the Indians by the crown.
That is pretty well the situation today. The Indians signed the treaty expecting the justice of the white man's chief and instead they were to find the restrictive laws of Canada were to apply to them but not those guaranteeing them legal status as Canadians in all of the implications of that latter phrase.
By the treaty he had been made a ward of the crown, and he could obtain land, but not land held in fee simple, outright. He could earn a livelihood by hunting. There is much concern, as suggested by the mover of this bill, as to whether the treaty rights have been upheld. The Indian has the right to hunt. The federal government, under the British North America Act, had exclusive jurisdiction as to Indians. However, the federal government transferred its resources in 1930 to the provinces, and with this went the jurisdiction over hunting and fishing rights. The Indians were charged by game wardens and others in charge of resources for hunting without a permit and hunting out of season. Most of those cases were undefended and the Indians were levied pretty hefty fines. Today, this is not the situation, as is evidenced by a recent decision in the case of an Eskimo at any rate by a judge of the territorial court of the Northwest Territories. In any event, suffice it to say the courts today uphold those long preserved treaty rights of the Indians.
The right of occupation of certain areas of land, now commonly known as Indian reserves, has not been diminished in so far as those having treaty rights are concerned. At the time of the signing of the treaties to which I referred great emphasis was placed on the fact that this land was preserved to be available to the Indian and his children and his children's children. It was a great inducement to the Indian people at the time to sign the treaty. Under those treaties the Indians obtained an inferior legal status. I will come back to this point again.
To revert for a moment, may I say that that particular status in effect was derogated upon the signing of the treaties. The passage of the Indian Act simply compounded this situation. The first Indian Act was passed in 1868. The government soon realized that if they were to make the Indians their wards there must be a special act to govern. I do not propose to review the past Indian acts but simply to consider the parts of the provisions which I have already placed on the record.
In the past undoubtedly special legislation was necessary to protect the Indian but now
Canada Elections Act
thousands of Indians have been to Europe to fight for our country in the second world war and even in the first war. They can read and they do read newspapers; they have radios. They live in a democracy and they would like some of the democracy on their own reserves as well as outside. Hopes ran high among the Indian people that they were at last to get a new act. They hoped-at least a large portion of them-that they would get the vote. They hoped that they would also be able to run their own affairs. Some advantages were given to them by the new act, but actually Indian affairs in most cases are still being run in much the same manner as they were 90 years ago.
The new act really did not give the Indians the vote. The courts have held that an Indian's property, both real and personal, off the reserve is taxable, while on the reserve it is not. Under the Indian Act if he takes the vote he will be taxed on his land and on his personal property on the reserve and he must pay succession and inheritance taxes. The Indian can, with the consent of the minister, apply for enfranchisement and become a Canadian citizen under the present provisions of the Indian Act. If he does that he will then have the vote but he must transfer his land to another Indian on the reserve within 30 days and sell any improvements that he may have made on it. If it is not sold by then it is auctioned off and he must take what he can get for it. Once enfranchised neither he, his wife nor his children can ever return to the reserve. They receive compensation for the income they would have received had they stayed on the reserve for the next 20 years but of course this is much less than the children would have eventually received.
These terms in the present Indian Act make the Indian people themselves-a large portion of them at any rate-dread enfranchisement. These terms, the terms which I suggest the mover of the bill has not taken into consideration in his companion legislation when he proposes certain amendments to the Indian Act, are such that there is not much purpose in the house acceding to this bill being passed when the companion legislation which purports to effect the amendments which are necessary is lacking.
To get back to what enfranchisement would do to the majority of the Indian people resident on the reserves. To the Indian, as I said, enfranchisement is a threat rather than a privilege and the section of the Indian Act which allows an individual or a whole tribe to be forced into enfranchisement without their consent is truly a threat over their heads. It is difficult for an

Canada Elections Act
Indian to give up his only home and the only way o f life he knows to receive the privilege of the vote. With his limited experience he usually feels the price is too high. He cannot foresee that without the vote he will never have a voice in running his own affairs or enacting the laws governing him.
Not only is it extremely difficult for the Indian to obtain the vote, but he also lacks that fundamental right we all cherish, namely the right to own our own property. Off the reserve the Indian may own property but on it he may not. It matters not whether the title for the reserve is held in the name of the crown or whether it is a grant, as long as the property is for the exclusive use of the Indians, it is under the jurisdiction of the department of Indian affairs and from their decision there is no appeal under the present provisions of the act. The minister of the department, before this government came into power, in the past decided what the reserve will be used for; that is, this purpose or that purpose. Under the provisions of the act the minister may decide what portion may be divided into lots or sections, or whether it should be divided at all. He decides-in this case she decides-where roads will run and what portion will be set aside for schools and hospitals.
No Indian may even hold a small portion of his own reserve as his own. If the tribe votes a portion of the reserve to any one Indian the minister may, if she so desires, take the land from that Indian and give it to another. If the minister does take it she will pay to the Indian the amount she decides for the house and any improvements which have been made on the land. Even on the Indian's death his widow cannot stay on the land unless the minister consents to her presence, nor can the Indian's heirs; nor can the Indian lease any portion of the land the tribe may have voted him without the minister's consent. He may, with the consent of the minister and of the whole tribe, surrender his land back to the crown and the minister will then dispose of that land in the manner in which she sees fit. If the whole tribe desires to leave the reserve, they cannot sell their reserve without the minister's consent. The minister may even lease the Indian's land to a white man, if she so desires, for one year, without the Indian's consent.
In the new act there is a section which says that a tribe, if they get the government's consent, can secure control of the land on their reservation and supervise its allotment, but as this consent can be withdrawn at any time it offers little hope to the Indian of ever getting permanent control of his property. The fact that the Indian must always be 
a tenant of the crown discourages him from improving the land or taking pride in it. In other words, the minister and the department have complete control of the land of the Indian people. The Indian, because he has no vote, has no real voice in the appointment of the minister and from the minister's decision there is no appeal.
One does not have to look very far for justification of the principle behind the legislation before the house. Extending to the Indian people the right to exercise the franchise would give them some voice in the actions of the federal government in these matters relating to the disposition of the land which has been preserved for the Indian people by treaties of 100 years ago and more.
These provisions of the Indian Act to which I have referred are only a small portion of the provisions of that act which must be considered as companion amendments to the legislation before the house before the bill should go forward in its present incomplete form, incomplete inasmuch as the companion bill is incomplete, and much more consideration must be given to the matter.
I might refer here to the committee on Indian affairs which has been established and which is composed of members of this house and the other place. At this time that committee is in the process of considering all aspects of the life of the Indian people of Canada. It is a committee that has been wanting for a long time, a committee upon which is sitting a very distinguished member of a well-known Indian band of the west who is also a very distinguished member of the other place. For the first time in Canada's history the Indian people will have a voice of authority on this committee. This is a great stride forward in the achievement of an understanding of the problems confronting the Indian people.
I have no doubt whatever that the enfranchisement of the Canadian Indian will be one of the subjects which will be considered by the joint committee, and perhaps at this juncture it would be proper for me to suggest to members of the house that this bill should not go forward now and, indeed, at any time until the findings of the committee which is now sitting are made known. Undoubtedly the committee will delve very searchingly and deeply into those provisions of the Indian Act to which I have referred during the course of my remarks. Once the committee has done that I am quite certain it will come up with all these factors I have mentioned which have a bearing on the far-reaching results that the passage of this bill would have, having in mind the fact that the bill might conflict with the provisions of

the present Indian Act. As I have already pointed out, quite conceivably substantial disadvantages might accrue to the Canadian Indian people if the bill were to pass in its present form without very searching consideration being given first to all the relevant provisions of the Indian Act.
I wish to make it quite clear before resuming my seat that the Yukon Indian people as well as the Northwest Territories Indian people have the right to vote in federal elections. I would venture to say that that right is cherished by the Indian people of the Yukon. Certainly they would not want to see anything done to disturb it and certainly I would do my utmost to oppose any such move vigorously. Having lived among the Indian people of the Yukon I can assure hon. members that they have as much grasp of the issues involved in federal elections as a good many of their white brothers, and on that score no member of the house should have any hesitation in supporting the principle involved in the bill.
I wish also to make one further point. There are Indian people in this country above the 60th parallel and, indeed, a good number of Eskimo people residing in areas of Canada who have no representation in this house at all. I am speaking of the Indian people who reside east of the 102nd meridian on the mainland of Canada and of the Eskimo people who reside on the Arctic islands. There are some Indian people east of the 102nd meridian. It is my intention to propose in the very near future that this area of Canada, now unrepresented in the house, be included as an electoral district and that the people residing there be given the opportunity of voting in federal elections. They are Canadian citizens as much as any hon. member of this house and as such they are entitled to the same rights and privileges.
I might mention here that by our neglect in not having taken this area into the collective consideration of Canada a large number of white citizens are also deprived of the vote in federal elections. I refer now to Royal Canadian Mounted Police stationed in these areas as well as defence personnel, personnel manning weather stations, scientists and the like. All of these people in this area are disenfranchised because there is simply no representation. However, I think chiefly of the Indian people, the subject of this bill, when I speak of this particular area. In the north there is certainly no doubt that above the 60th parallel all the Indian people cherish the right to vote and, speaking in full support of the principle behind this measure, I wish to suggest to the hon. member who has introduced the legislation that, because of all the reasons I have 66968-9-271
Canada Elections Act
mentioned, the bill should be deferred until the findings of the joint committee of this house and the other place have been made known.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, the intent of Bill No. C-13, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, is to extend the franchise to Indians now living on reservations. As the previous speaker pointed out, the Eskimos of the northern lands, the Indians of the Yukon and Northwest Territories and those Indians who have left reservations have the vote but Indians who are still on reservations, numbering some 165,000 or 170,000, have no vote. Their affairs are managed by government officials under the supervision of a minister of the crown and they have no recourse against that minister's decision through being able to express their pleasure or displeasure by the way they cast their ballots.
The mover of the bill has pointed out that this bill is a companion piece to Bill No. C-15, an act to amend the Indian Act, and that both bills have to be considered together. He has pointed out also that at the present time there are six provinces which extend the vote to Indians on reservations.
In 1949, the province of British Columbia extended the vote to Indians on reservations. In that year, the first native Indian, a Mr. Frank Calder, was elected to the provincial legislature from the constituency of Atlin. Other provinces which have extended the vote to Indians on reservations are Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Manitoba and New Brunswick. The history of the Indian nations, who are the original people of Canada, is a proud one. Their loyalty to the crown, their loyalty to Canada, has been unquestioned in wars starting with the war of 1812-14 and continuing through to the second world war.
I can hardly agree with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) about the difficulties which can be encountered in implementing this bill, and I listened most intently to what he had to say. It seems to me the purpose of the bill is very simple. It simply says the federal government will do what these six provincial governments have done, that is give the Indians on reservations the right to vote without the loss of any of their treaty rights. He has pointed out that at the present time there is a standing committee on privileges and elections which has been set up to consider and recommend revisions to the Canada Elections Act. Undoubtedly the field covered in this bill will be considered by that committee, and for that reason it is perhaps very apt that this bill should come before us now. The debate which has occurred on this bill has covered

Canada Elections Act
most of the aspects of the problem and should provide this committee with a wealth of information when they are considering the revision of the Canada Elections Act.
It has been pointed out also that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has appointed the Hon. James Gladstone, a full-blooded Indian, to the other place. This is the first time that has happened. It does indicate that the government is conscious of the obligation to give our original Canadians representation in the government. I would think the logical follow-up from this point would be to pick out the essence of these two bills, that is Bill No. C-13 and Bill No. C-15, and implement their provisions in the relatively near future.
It has been pointed out also that there is a joint committee of this house and the other place set up to study the Indian Act. It seems to me that we would be ill advised to press either of these measures at the present time until these two committees, which have the power to send for people and to investigate very thoroughly, make their reports to this house. I expect the hon. member who sponsored this bill will be a member of both of those committees. I believe the problem can be cured at that time and some of the difficulties which the previous speaker has foreseen can be overcome as a result of the consideration given to these problems.
In my riding, which is a city riding, I do have an Indian reservation on the western boundary. The Indian children on that reservation attend a school where they mix with white children from a very fine area of the city. I am assured by the principal of that school that these young Indian boys and girls take second place to none in their ability, in their application and in their potential as good citizens of this country. There are numerous examples of the tremendous contributions made by Indians in the development of art, literature, business, finance, and in almost every field of Canadian endeavour. I have no hesitation in saying that I support the idea behind both of these bills. I am most anxious to see what I consider to be an injustice, that is the failure to give Indians a franchise, corrected. I believe that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has made a worth while contribution in bringing forward these two bills.


Mr. John Charlton (Brant-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, on many previous occasions I have taken part in debates on bills similar to this one dealing with the same objectives as this one has. I compliment the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for being so persistent in bringing this bill forward in this session

as well as the past several sessions. I do agree with, and I am in sympathy with, the objectives of this bill.
I have the honour to represent the Indian reservation with the largest population in Canada. I refer to the Six Nations reservation near Brantford. Before going farther, however, it might be well to go into the history of the voting privileges of the Indian people in Canada. It is interesting to note that in 1885 a Conservative government gave the Indian people the privilege of voting. This privilege was based on a property qualification, and as near as I can understand it the qualification was that the Indian had to own a house to the value of around $150. This permitted almost any Indian to vote at that time.
It is interesting also to note that in the year 1898 the Liberal government of that day changed the law and made it necessary that the names of the Indians appear on the provincial enumeration lists. Of course I would presume that in 1898 there were very few provinces that permitted Indians to vote, and in that way the vote was taken away from most of the Indian people. After the first world war, of course, the veterans' names were added to the list of those having voting privileges, and after the second world war their spouses were permitted the privilege of voting. This is the position so far as federal elections are concerned now, outside of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
Ontario gave Indian people the privilege to vote in 1953. It is interesting to note the results of that action in the number of votes polled on the Six Nations Indian reservation in the three elections preceding 1953 and the one election that has followed 1953. In 1945, 89 votes were polled on that reservation; that is in the 1945 provincial election. In 1948, 97 votes were polled in the Brant portion and 3 in the Haldimand-Norfolk portion of the reservation, or a total of 100. In the election in 1951, in the Brant portion 89 votes were polled and in Haldimand-Norfolk 15 votes were polled, making a total of 104 votes. In the 1955 election, after the privilege of voting had been extended to the Indians, out of a total of 1,447 names on the list in the Brant section and 209 names on the list in the Haldimand-Norfolk section, it was found that 223 voted in the Brant section and 55 voted in the Haldimand-Norfolk section, making a total of 278 voting out of a possible 1,656.
That is an indication of the result. While not nearly all of those Indian people voted, a considerably larger number voted in the 1955 election than did in the previous elections. As I say, while not nearly all voted, there was a considerable increase in the numbers who did so. We know that all will not

vote. It is against the religion of some of them to vote. Hence, they do not wish to do so for anything.
The Indian people of Canada, being the first citizens of this country should be entitled to the same right and privileges as other citizens. I have said that on many occasions. A high percentage of those on the Six Nations reservation served in both world war I and world war II. They fought for their country. They are interested in the affairs of the country. As they became educated more fully over a number of years I think perhaps they will take a greater interest if given the privilege of voting.
It has been said that this proposal is trying to force the vote on the Indian people. I am sure there is no such intention. No one else in Canada is forced to vote. Why should the Indians be forced to vote either? As I said before, as to some of the people, namely those who retain their original religion and who are known as pagan Indians, it is against their religion to vote for anything; and, of course, they will not vote for the council on the reservations. You could not expect them to vote if it is against their principles to do so. But as time goes on the situation may change. I might say here that the educational system on that Six Nations reservation at or near Brantford is far better than that of most townships in that vicinity.
Some fear the loss of some of their privileges if they vote. Among those privileges, of course, would be the right not to pay taxes on the reservation. Indians, of course, pay all other taxes anyway except the personal income tax on money earned on the reservation and property tax on the reservation. They also enjoy a dual citizenship as between Canada and the United States. They fear that if they voted in a Canadian election they might lose that dual citizenship. I am sure they would not do so, but if they feel that way it is rather hard to convince them otherwise.
We have an Indian affairs committee set up to study the problems of the Indian people. I am sure that committee will go into this problem fully within the next year or so and I am sure that they will find a solution to this problem. Although, as I said before, I am in thorough agreement with the principle of this bill, I feel that it would perhaps be better if it were left over until after this committee has sat, completed its deliberations and brought forward its recommendations. I am sure that something will come out of its study. In view of the fact that many provinces now give the Indians a vote, probably something will be done with respect to the federal elections act. I am happy 66968-9-271J
Canada Elections Act
to have had the opportunity to take part in this debate. I hope that something constructive will come out of the committee hearings.


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to hon. members who have spoken previously on Bill No. C-15, I felt possibly they were speaking from experiences in their own constituencies. I think we must all make a contribution on the basis of the experience we have gained. While it is obvious that a great deal of research has been done, especially by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and while certainly my contribution will not compare with his in erudition, I might admit to some close ties with the Indian people. I refer not to blood ties but to social ties. My father was able to speak the Cree language when he was a young man and went to school with the Indians some seventy years ago. The school at that time was in the Qu'Appelle valley and was integrated probably seventy years before its time. However, I just wanted to give the background for my contribution.
We must deal with Indians of many different types and temperaments. The need for the franchise must possibly be analysed at a local level. In this situation we must face some cold hard facts. It seems to me that there are some things which the Indian needs much more than he needs the franchise. In the next few minutes I intend to introduce some facts which will bear out that statement. In the province of Saskatchewan last year, in the Qu'Appelle valley there was a large gathering of Indian representatives. While in the process of discussing the affairs of the Indians they were met by a delegation of the provincial government led by the premier of that province. The premier at that time offered the franchise to the Indians and the right to buy liquor. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that 95 per cent of the Indians on the committee rejected the proposal. In the light of a decision of that nature we cannot be too hasty in suggesting that those Indians would prefer to have the franchise.
I think it has been found that the Indian is still afraid of losing his treaty rights. We have been unable to convince the Indian that we are not putting his inherent rights in jeopardy when we offer him the franchise. A great many Indians are still unwilling to accept the full responsibility which is assumed by the enfranchised citizen. We must realize that with privileges go responsibilities. We cannot withhold from the Indians the voting privilege when they are willing to accept their full responsibility.

Canada Elections Act
We as legislators have the responsibility to encourage every worthwhile piece of legislation in order that the Indian will be integrated; but, as I mentioned before, the situation must be analysed possibly at a local level. When I look at the situation in my own area I do wonder what is the best plan. The Indians like many other people are having difficulties. Our Indians are experiencing the pangs of growing pains in learning how to conduct their affairs of local administration along the same lines as other citizens. A great advancement is taking place, we must admit, but they are still a long way from being able to legislate for themselves.
As I mentioned in dealing with the local situation with which I am possibly more familiar, and reverting to the point which I made about the Indian getting something more than a franchise, I would remind the house that on a reservation of possibly 300 families only 120 of these are engaged in farming and the raising of livestock. The remainder of those families make their living or are sustained by old age assistance income, casual labour, domestic labour and by the sale of hay and other available products on their reservation. The other 180 families are living on the bounty of the government. When we have Indians in that situation, we wonder whether there is some more helpful means of bringing them along into integration than merely by the franchise.
Again looking at it from a local level, we must realize that we have different groups of Indians even on the one reservation or in the one tribe. First of all we have the older group, and many of these are bewildered people who cannot understand the technical and social advances and will always be for the rest of their natural lives a charge on society. We wonder what advantage the franchise would be to them. We have the middle aged group with a limited form of education and probably very little technical knowledge. Sometimes they are apathetic to self-government and they have, as I say, little technical knowledge. This, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced is a result of living under a welfare state. As a result of living in this situation we cannot analyse the reaction of the Indian toward the franchise. We cannot comprehend how an Indian of this type will treat his right to vote and become a citizen in the same way as other citizens. We have possibly as the most enlightened group the students of today, and certainly it is a great deal of encouragement to all of us to see the progress which is being made in the academic institutions. Only recently I attended a graduation at the school of the Oblate fathers and saw a group of young Indians

graduate, and they would do credit to any school in Canada. It seems to me that education is certainly the means by which we can place the Indian in a position where he will be able to appreciate the franchise and exercise it to the best of his ability.
We see as time goes on in the department of indian affairs that Indians are receiving the right to look after their own affairs. They are being given more responsibility, and only recently I noticed in my own area that several have been placed in positions as assistant farm instructors. In this type of development naturally the time will come when the Indians will be able to look after themselves, and I believe it is only a matter of time until the Indians of Canada will be in the position to accept in its full meaning the right to vote, the franchise which we all enjoy, and until the Indians themselves are ready and willing to accept that responsibility, I do not feel it should be thrust upon them.


Mr. Small:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-49 to provide for the establishment of a national energy board- Mr. Churchill-Mr. Rea in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 87-Extension of part to oil.
Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations not only on this clause but on the amendment proposed by the minister. If I may be permitted to do so I should like to make these observations in French. The minister will understand that it will be easier for me although it will be more difficult for him. Perhaps by this time, however, he has grown accustomed to these difficulties and no doubt will follow the meaning of my words on the simultaneous translation device.
(Translation):
It is section 87, Mr. Chairman, which has to do with oil, and I think it is the first section in the bill which deals with oil. I shall read subsection (1), which says:
The Governor in Council may by proclamation extend the application of this Part to oil.

The part now being discussed, is, of course, Part VI, and section 81 provides that:
No person shall export any gas or power or import any gas except under the authority of and in accordance with a licence issued under this Part.
Under section 82, licences for power or gas export are mentioned and subsection (b) reads:
(b) for the importation of gas.
Before the amendment, we were being asked to give the government, or to the governor in council, very far reaching powers. Now we, on this side of the house, were opposed to the granting of such powers to the government. We were being asked to let the government decide when, where and how the act, or regulations thereunder, would apply to oil. We were being asked further to let the government decide what kind of control should be exercised with regard to either import or export of oil. Then, on second reading, we strongly objected to legislating in that manner.
(Text):
At this point I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Ottawa West on Tuesday, May 26, as reported at page 4028 of Hansard:
I am one who believes that parliament should have the right to deal with matters of this kind, and I am at a complete loss, remembering the argument used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) when they were in opposition, to understand how they could seek the kind of arbitrary power they are now seeking, and let this proposal get past the draft bill stage and be introduced into this house, having regard to all they said against arbitrary power in the situation which was related to a national emergency and to the national defence of this country.
Those were the words spoken by the hon. member for Ottawa West on Tuesday, May 26. The next day with regard to the same matter the Leader of the Opposition, as reported at page 4084 of Hansard of Wednesday, May 27, had this to say:
Finally, may I mention the situation regarding section 87 having to do with oil imports and exports. It has already been dealt with in great detail and I do not propose to do so in detail at this time.
My leader then made reference to remarks made by the hon. member for Calgary South the previous evening. I shall pass over these without reading them, although not because I dislike the hon. member for Calgary South who is a nice gentleman. I continue reading from the words of the Leader of the Opposition:
I know that he was no doubt thinking of an emergency which would require action with regard
National Energy Board to imports so that western oil could be moved east under certain circumstances.
Further along the Leader of the Opposition continued:
That kind of situation would require government action at the time perhaps with regard to the import of oil but it would be of such a far-reaching character that our complaint is that this action should be taken with the knowledge and consent of parliament.
(Translation):
At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I want to stress the considerable amount of work done by my leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) who exerted pressure upon government leaders for the improvement of this bill, especially section 87, but also section 85 (2).


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear!


Gabriel Roberge: But for the amendment suggested this afternoon, before adjournment, by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), we ourselves would have had at least three amendments to suggest; now, however, we shall not move them. We believe that the amendment moved by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green! is, on the whole, acceptable.
(Text):
I was saying that we on this side of the house having regard to the arguments we put forward are prepared to accept the amendment proposed by the minister to clause 87 of the bill by which amendment subclauses 3 and 4 are added to clause 87. Before proceeding any further I have a suggestion to make to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The minister said that clause 85 (2) which was deleted from the bill referred specifically to oil. Subclause 3 that is now proposed reads as follows:
The governor in council may by regulation exempt any class of oil or oil products or any area from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this part.
Subclause 4 refers only to the proclamation referred to in subclause 1 and 2 of clause 87.
In view of the fact that under the proposed amendment parliament would be seized of the proclamation as soon as it has been issued, would it not be a good thing to also include the regulations mentioned in subclause 3 so that parliament would be able to judge whether the government is right or wrong in exempting a certain class of oil or a certain area from the application of this part?
I should like to make this suggestion to the minister and I hope he will consider it
4264	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board in the spirit in which it is offered, that the following words be added to subclause 4: After the word "section" in the first line the words "and regulations made thereunder". Of course, in the third line the words "it is" should be changed to the words "they are". In the fourth line from the bottom after the word "proclamation" I should like to have the following words added, "or regulations made thereunder". The word "it" at the end of the line should be changed to the word "same".
This will have the effect of enabling parliament to judge exactly what had happened in the recess and what is happening with these regulations that exempt a class of oil to the extent that the entire part of this bill applies to oil.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member who has just spoken has made a very useful contribution to the debate and I appreciate the co-operation of the opposition in working with us on this bill and making it clear where it was perhaps vague. Also, as I mentioned last night, we have had considerable assistance from people in the oil and gas industry in suggesting amendments which did not change the basic factors in the bill at all but simply spelled things out a little more clearly.
I am very glad to hear that the opposition is prepared to accept this modification of clause 87. I think it indicates that we are, as we were throughout this debate, pretty much of a mind concerning the general principles underlying the bill but had some differences of opinion regarding clauses here and there. However, the hon. member has suggested that with regard to subclause 3 of the proposed amendment that the regulations made under that clause might be put forward for debate in the same way in which we are suggesting the proclamation might be.
I hope the hon. member will not press that too far for two reasons which occur to me immediately: one, there might be a number of regulations subject, perhaps as time goes on, if this clause becomes operative, to amendment; two, the regulations will be in the normal course and according to law published in the Canada Gazette and subject to debate at the same time that debate occurred under subclause 4. Under subclause 4, if and when a debate is called according to that procedure, any regulations that had been drafted would be open to consideration, to criticism and to amendment. Then, too, as a third reason, if under subclause 4 following debate it is resolved that the proclamation be revoked, the regulations under clause 87 would fall automatically. Therefore, I hope


the hon. member will not press us too hard on that if my explanation appears to him to be satisfactory.


George James McIlraith: Because I spoke so strongly on the principle involved in this clause on second reading I should like to say a word or two about it. I said that the clause in the bill as printed and presented to the committee was in that form most offensive and could lead to a great many difficulties that would be damaging to the country in certain circumstances. The minister has now come forward with an amendment which, while it does not do all the things we asked in that it does not permit a decision by parliament on the question of whether or not oil import control should be established before such action is taken, it does go a long way in ameliorating the difficulty of which we complained. Because it goes such a long way I think it is perfectly proper to accept it as a compromise. It can, I think we must admit, be argued that it is a wholly reasonable compromise of two conflicting points of view and it certainly will permit the minister to take action to have the government provide for the possible difficulties of which he thought there was some danger and for which he thought provision should be made. At the same time it permits parliamentary control over the action even although that parliamentary control may be a second-class method in that it comes after the action has taken place.
Since it is put forward as a compromise and does go a long way toward meeting the difficulty we raised at the earlier stages of this bill, I am perfectly content to accept it, and I must acknowledge to the minister our appreciation of his bringing it forward. Possibly, there are some small objections which could be taken to subclause 3, but those are guarded against by the fact that it is limited to oil only. It is possible to make out a hypothetical case against it but I think legislation has to be practical. While our objections to the clause 85 (2) as it existed before that subclause was deleted stands in its full force and vigour, I think having the clause limited as it is here to oil removes most of the objections to it, or sufficient of them that we are not going to press the matter further.


Hazen Robert Argue: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, having used strong words in connection with some phases of this bill I would feel I was lacking in sportsmanship if I did not say to the minister that I too wish to join with others in expressing the satisfaction we all have over the decision of the government in the face, if I may say so without any way detracting from the richness of my acknowledgment, of the strong representations made by the opposition regarding this and other clauses. I note on reading the amendment that the principle incorporated and, indeed, much of the language are not unlike that introduced by the Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent when he was prime minister on the occasion of a debate in this house on a bill to which these words were made applicable. Just as on that occasion he acknowledged the co-operative effort of those then sitting on this side, it is not without propriety that there should be a similar acknowledgment of the readiness of the minister to listen to representations made by the opposition groups.
This amendment, while not perfect in its entirety in view of the observation made by the hon. member for Megantic, nonetheless remedies substantially the objections that were noted on this side and on that account, as one who last night said that he believed there was a proper constitutional relationship between the executive and parliament, I cannot help but note with great satisfaction the acceptance by the minister of these views.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
National Energy Board
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 88 agreed to.
On clause 89-General regulations.
Hazen Robert Argue: On clause 89 I have a general question I should like to ask the minister. The clause reads as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect.
I had intended to ask this question under clause 85 but during its discussion I was called to the telephone and while I was out the clause was passed. However, I think it is quite appropriate to ask my question under this clause and that is why I raise it at this time. It has been reported from Washington, I understand, that it is the opinion of usually well-informed people in the capitol that the Canadian government has arrived at a policy with respect to the exportation of gas to the United States by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, and the report suggests that the Canadian government is desirous of an increase in the proposed rates for gas that may be charged by this company. Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce care to comment on any decision the government may have taken in this regard or on any opinion the government may have as to policy? I do not wish the minister to reply that I am now suggesting that the Canadian government adopt a policy without any reference to the energy board. I had these notes on my desk before subclause 2 of clause 85 was deleted and I have had a number of requests to ask the minister this question. I said that I would ask the government this question and I have now done so. I would appreciate learning whether the government has gone ahead in its thinking as to export rates for gas that will be charged United States consumers and whether in the opinion of the government there should be an increase in the suggested charges.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, reports are constantly being circulated with regard to matters pertaining to the oil and gas industry and sometimes you hear rumors about what the government is intending to do, what it has decided and things of that nature which actually are in the realm of speculation. The answer to the hon. gentleman's question is that no decision has been made along this line and, as he pointed out, it will be the problem of the energy board to look at the entire situation and then examine the licence applications that are before it and inform us as to what in their opinion should be done. That is about the situation as I see it. There has been no decision on the part of the government. The policy of the government has been

National Energy Board expressed in the course of the debate which has gone on now for so many days.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is really what I had reference to. I do not want to put words in the minister's mouth but I took it from his statement the other evening that that was the intention of the government in rejecting the amendment proposed by the Liberal party and that even though the circumstances might be considered similar the policy of the Canadian government would be to get the very best price possible for Canadian gas.


George James McIlraith: This clause seems to be extraordinarily wide and I am wondering whether the minister has in mind any particular type of regulations that would be required, bearing in mind that clauses 7, 42, 85 and 88 give quite extensive powers to make regulations. Clause 7 provides for rules being made by the board covering its own hearings and the procedure in relation thereto. Clause 42 provides that the board may, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations respecting the location of international power lines, the registration of plans, and so on. Clause 85 gives rather extensive power to make regulations to the governor in council limited to the export and import of power, gas and oil. Clause 88 gives the board, with the approval of the governor in council, power to make regulations on a very extensive variety of subjects. Indeed, it seems to me to be taken mostly from the Pipe Lines Act. At the moment, I am unable to visualize the requirements for clause 89, and I wish the minister would clarify just what type of regulations he has in mind that are not provided for in the other rather extensive clauses that provide for the making of regulations by the different authorities concerned.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. The hon. member has drawn our attention to clause 89, which is expressed in general terms, and has indicated four clauses in which regulations are also mentioned. Those four, clauses 7, 42, 85 and 88, deal with specific matters concerning which regulations shall be made. This one, clause 89, is intended to cover the administrative details, the internal organization of the board itself, and is put in just in case the governor in council may find it necessary to make some regulations covering any specific matters such as have been outlined already for the organization of the board, its staff, and things of that nature.


George James McIlraith: There is one further question I should like to ask the minister. The language used in clause 89 is general, and very broad. I am wondering if it is the intention of the government in council, by regulations under this clause, to supplant the


authority of the board, or the board with the approval of the governor in council, as indicated under the other clauses. This is a possibility which I think is contrary to the scheme set out in the bill but yet is possible under the language of this clause as drafted.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I doubt that it would go that far. It does not confer any powers beyond those that are to be found elsewhere in the bill. It is not intended that it should override any of the other powers in the bill.


George James McIlraith: Has the minister satisfied himself this clause is in language which does not permit the governor in council to override the other authorities? I point out to the minister, to illustrate what I mean, that it is not stated to be subject to clauses 7, 42, 85 and 88. It is not made subject to the four clauses and I wonder if that was deliberate, if it was intended.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In our judgment it could not run contrary to those specific clauses because it states here it is for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act. Our examination of it indicates that it would not go as far as the hon. member has suggested and is warning us against. I believe it is intended solely for administrative purposes.


Murdo William Martin: I think this is a rather unusual clause. As the hon. member for Ottawa West has pointed out, there are four other clauses of the bill which deal with regulations that may be made by the board, in some instances with the approval of the governor in council, or as in clause 7 without the approval of the governor in council. Clause 88, of course, is one that hardly touches the kind of purpose that the minister stated conceivably could belong to clause 89. But certainly, clause 7 in particular and clause 42 would seem to embrace what might be contemplated in clause 89, in order to make effective the purposes and provisions of this act.
One wonders certainly whether this clause is needed at all. I am particularly impressed with this observation made by the hon. member for Ottawa West. When you look at clause 7 the board may, under that clause, make rules without any reference to the governor in council with respect to the sittings of the board; with respect to matters having to do with the procedure in relation to applications, representations and complaints made to the board; the conduct of the hearings before the board; the manner and conduct of any business before the board. Likewise, in subclause (c), the board may make rules, again without reference to the governor in council, with regard to the division of work amongst the members, the assignment of hearings and so on. I suppose

that means, as the minister said the other night, amongst the various members of the board, and this was the argument he used, in part, for a five-man board as opposed to a three-man board. The clause refers to the assignment to members of the board of various responsibilities with regard to hearings.
Then, subclause (d) is so general as to be almost synonymous with the intent of the language in clause 89, that is to say, generally carrying on the work of the board, the management of its internal affairs, duties of its officers and employees. Now, what point is there in keeping clause 89 unless it is clear that the purposes intended and the objectives covered in that clause are different from the powers given for making regulations in the four cited clauses. It is conceivable that there may be a conflict between regulations drawn up by the board, either on its autonomous authority as provided for in clause 7 or after having received the approval of the governor in council. The governor in council may decide upon particular regulations and the board may decide upon another set of regulations, and there would be a conflict. There is nothing in this act, unless I am unmindful of the earlier provisions, which would give priority in law to those regulations drawn up under clause 89 by the governor in council.
It seems to us, in the absence of more precise information, that there could be no reason for this clause. Another objection to this clause, I believe, is that there is no limitation on the extent of time it may run. It could easily be argued by the governor in council that for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act the regulations must be not only those enacted by the governor in council at the beginning but regulations which the governor in council might, from time to time, in the long future enact. There is no limitation whatever. It could be argued by a cabinet that wanted so to argue that these regulations envisaged long after the act came into being, long after it was in operation, were necessary under the literal interpretation of this clause to enable the governor in council to carry out the purposes and provisions of the act.
I suggest to the minister that if there is no real reason for this provision, in the face of these other enabling clauses, this clause perhaps ought to be modified or dropped.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I just say in reply, let us not overlook the fact that regulations made under this clause or indeed the other clauses, will be published in the Canada Gazette and tabled in the House of Commons. They can be scrutinized and I presume will be scrutinized with the same care with which my hon. friends have looked at the bill.
National Energy Board
The second thing I should like to say is that two days ago my hon. friend asked me to consult the law officers of the crown with regard to a point which was quite as technical as is this one. On this occasion I have followed that advice. I have consulted with the law officer of the crown who incidentally drafted in 1955 the concessional clause which my hon. friend mentioned a little while ago in connection with the Defence Production Act and which was pressed upon the government of the day by an effective opposition and who has in turn drafted the concessional clause which appears before the house tonight conceded to by the government of the day under the pressure of a very effective opposition today. Having consulted him, I discover that this is a common provision and is usually associated with specific powers. If you look at section 5 of the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act you will find there the following:
5. The governor in council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this act-
There is the general clause. Then under former drafting that used to go on to read, "and without restricting the generality of the foregoing", and then listed specific matters. Under the present drafting methods, under very experienced guidance, the clauses have been separated and for the expressed purpose that the summary conviction penalties would not apply, they are not mentioned here. I am informed that the authorities are quite clear that a provision like this one is subject to all the other provisions of the act and subservient to it.
I think that this is an explanation of clause 89 which here appears separately and yet in other acts has been expressed like that with subclauses underneath it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister for this explanation. On reflection I think he may be right. In so far as conflict is concerned the regulations passed by the governor in council would have a priority of position. As to this general power given to the governor in council with regard to making regulations which he says is to be found often in statutes, I wonder whether the minister will not agree that this particular kind of power given to the governor in council is not often found in legislation where in the body of the bill-that is to say in other bills-power is given either to the governor in council under certain contexts or to a board acting on its own to make regulations? Is it not a fact that one would not find in legislation generally a provision such as this, namely the provision in clause 89, that is only in cases where there was not a general

National Energy Board empowering in other sections of a bill to subsidiary bodies acting on their own or to bodies acting subject to the governor in council? I admit that this general language is often to be found in the statutes but I doubt whether it can be found in many statutes where a minor body has been given the wide powers given to the board in this bill in section 7.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is quite right when he says it is found in many statutes. I could give him another example to the one I quoted this afternoon, namely the Meat Inspection Act, chapter 36 of the statutes of 1955, section 5 of which reads as follows:
5. The governor in council may make regulations :for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act

Then it goes on to list certain things under it. I think this is just a different method of drafting which I have already explained. It separates this general clause from some of the specific ones.


George James McIlraith: The point, Mr. Chairman, really is as to the conflict of authority to make regulations. This clause is undoubtedly in many other acts in the form in which it is found here but in such cases there is no other authority or power to make regulations. But here we have four other provisions for making regulations and by different authorities, namely by the board itself in one case or by the board with the approval of the governor in council. All we feared was that under this section the governor in council might come in conflict with the other authorities having power to make regulations. But in the face of the minister's explanation and in the face of it being clear that it does not appear to be his intention that the governor in council should be seeking to make regulations in any field that could come under the specific sections dealing with the power to make regulations, namely sections 7, 42, 85 and 88, I think perhaps there is nothing more 3 wish to say.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 90-Her Majesty bound.
Mr. Cresiohl:: I should like the minister to explain this odd section which reads as follows:
Her Majesty is bound by this act.
In his reply will the minister please address himself to one or two anomalies that I see. I refer now to clause 86 which speaks about penalties. Does clause 90 mean that the Queen is exposed to the penalties enumerated in clause 86 and would

that destroy the doctrine that the Queen can do no wrong? I think it is a matter which is a little bit unusual. It is a doctrine in Canada that we have certainly always lived up to. In this clause provision is made to bind Her Majesty by this act, which means that she would necessarily be bound by every section of the act and hence would be exposed to the penalties which the act declares are imposable on anyone who is in breach of the act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to say that I was going to ask the minister exactly the same question as those that were asked by the hon. member for Cartier but I thought it was necessary for me to ask them as an ordinary countryman and layman. I am delighted to find that an hon. gentleman with legal experience is as befogged as I am and I shall await the minister's answer with interest.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Under the Interpretation Act it is required that clauses like this one be inserted in order to make it apply to crown corporations. Hon. members will discover that in clause 101 the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation Act is referred to. Clause 86 having to do with penalties, the crown would not be subjected to the penalties outlined there.


Leon David Crestohl: I did not quite catch the reply which the minister gave. May I also ask him whether this clause 90 also eliminates the necessity for applying for a bill of rights or at least for-


John Whitney Pickersgill: A petition of right.


Leon David Crestohl: -a petition of right in
order to proceed against Her Majesty. We require to do that now. If she becomes an ordinary subject, will it still be necessary to apply for a petition of right to proceed against her?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This has nothing to do with applying for a petition of rights. A crown corporation that is set up would come under the provisions of this act. My earlier explanation was that according to the Interpretation Act this clause is required in order to make the act apply to crown corporations.


Leon David Crestohl: Does the minister offer the opinion that the Queen is exposed to the penalties imposed by this act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said no.


Leon David Crestohl: Then how is she bound by
this act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: A certificate of public convenience and necessity would be required by the crown corporation before it could operate a pipe line.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the argument, but with deference to the minister the definition of the word "company" governs, and I do not think this clause includes the crown agency in that definition. Therefore the effect of it, as I see it, would be that the crown is bound, for instance, by the right given to a company to expropriate land. The crown would be found in that case, but if any pipe line owned by the crown was not incorporated by a special act it would not be required by this legislation to obtain a licence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am informed that clause 25 (1) would apply in the instance the hon. member has drawn to our attention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. minister if this will bind the crown in the right of a province?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What actual effect would that have? Could the minister explain?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no difference in that case, in those circumstances.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Except with respect to the matters in those clauses which the minister has kindly held over, where it was suggested on this side that there was a violation of the property and civil rights clause in the British North America Act. I understand the minister will report on that later on.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 91-Report to parliament.
George James McIlraith: I think this clause would permit an amendment which would provide for the tabling of the reports under clauses 22 and 23; that is, the studies and reports of the advisory board. Since we argued that case when those clauses were before the committee, perhaps it is unnecessary to repeat the arguments on this clause. I would merely content myself by asking the minister if he has considered our arguments made on the earlier clause about the minister being compelled to table the reports and studies under clause 22 (1), and if he is willing to provide for it under this clause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we did give that serious consideration and discussed it at some length the other day and reached a decision with regard to it. I have nothing further to add to what was said then.
National Energy Board


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 92 agreed to.
On clause 93-Commencement of act.
George James McIlraith: I take it it is the minister's intention to proclaim the act as soon as it is through all stages and receives royal assent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is the intention.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 94 agreed to.
On clause 95-Certain companies entitled to certificate.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, on clause 95-
The Depuly Chairman: Order. Before the hon. member speaks on this clause I might ask the hon. members to please lower their voices. It is extremely hard to hear the hon. member who is speaking.


George James McIlraith: On clause 95, I just want to clear up a very small point. I take it it is purely a transitional clause and nothing in it takes away any of the existing rights or orders that are now outstanding and were issued by the board of transport commissioners? I take it that no one holding those orders will be compelled to reapply and to argue his case again?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the whole purpose of clause 95, in order to protect the rights of companies now in existence and operating.


Murdo William Martin: Was that not already provided for by an earlier clause? I cannot put my hand on the clause, but I do recall that, the other night we dealt with a clause which seemingly covered part of this at any rate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the hon. member is referring to clause 25 (2), which deals with companies in existence and operating before the first day of October 1953.


Murdo William Martin: That is it? That is not the same as that provided in this clause?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, it is not the same.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 96 agreed to.
On clause 97-Application of part IV.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, clause 97 reads as follows;
(1) Part IV of this act does not apply to any person who, on the day this act comes into force, is operating a pipe line, until the board so orders.
Mr. Chairman, as far as I can see this clause actually removes the tolls of common carriers or pipe lines from the regulations
4270	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board under which they are at present. It does not make in my opinion too much sense as far as other oil pipe lines or gas pipe lines are concerned. I presume that this is designed to give the board time to set up its administrative machinery, but I suggest to the minister this proposition. Would not a better way to deal with the initial heavy work load be for the board to approve the rates on an interim basis and then review them later, at which time the rates could be suspended or otherwise be revised if the board found it necessary? In any event, the fact that the act, as I see it, will not come into force until it is proclaimed by the governor in council will give the board a considerable amount of time to establish its administrative machinery. It is because we view this clause from that angle, Mr. Chairman, that I want to move:
That clause 97 be amended by deleting subclause
(1).


Charles Edward Rea: Is the house ready for the question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has the minister any explanation to offer with regard to that clause in reply to our criticism of it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 97 (1) refers back to part IV which deals with traffic tolls and tariffs. My hon. friend may be under the impression that the oil pipe lines now operating are subject to tolls but that is not so because they were not declared to be common carriers by the board of transport commissioners. If his amendment were adopted these companies would immediately be subjected to part IV and would immediately be in default. The intention here is to give a little time so that part IV will not become applicable to these companies now in existence until the board so orders.


George James McIlraith: I take it that the purpose of clause 97 (1) will at least go part way in meeting the difficulty about which I spoke on an earlier clause in the bill as to a company that is not and does not intend to operate as a common carrier being required to file its tariffs and tolls.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the minister's explanation, Mr. Chairman, have I the permission of the committee to withdraw my amendment?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

On clause 98-Pending applications.
George James McIlraith: Can the minister tell us how many applications are now pending before the board of transport commissioners?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are, I believe, five applications or perhaps six before the board of transport commissioners.


George James McIlraith: Are those applications for leave to construct?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, they would be for leave to construct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 99 to 101 agreed to.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall we now revert to
clause 27?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 27-Approval of board.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, clauses 27 and 29 were stood over at the request of the hon. member for Villeneuve in order that we might consider whether or not a clause should be written into this bill which appears in the Railway Act and which did not appear in the Pipe Lines Act. He wondered whether that was an inadvertent omission in the Pipe Lines Act and whether or not that clause should appear here.
My understanding is that under the Quebec civil code the minister of lands and forests furnishes each registry office with a plan accompanied by a book of reference showing each lot by number. Transaction may then take place by reference to these lots by number without further description. The book of reference referred to in this legislation, however, and in the Railway Act, is a different document and is intended only for expropriation proceedings under this legislation. No difficulty has been expressed in this regard under the Railway Act or the Pipe Lines Act.
With reference to subsection 7 of section 171 of the Railway Act, this provision which the hon. member drew to our attention was not included in the Pipe Lines Act. It was probably intended to provide for a special situation in Quebec but under the Pipe Lines Act and in this bill the plan, profile and book of reference must be prepared to the satisfaction of the board so that the board may meet special requirements or situations in all provinces.
The Railway Act does not have a provision like subclause 4 of clause 29 of this bill. Our conclusion, therefore, was that there was no need to put in any special clause such as that the hon. member was asking about.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I have looked at the record and read the remarks of the hon. member for Villeneuve. 1 also checked the civil code as did the minister. He read to us article 2166 of the civil code. Paragraph 3 of article 2168 of the civil code reads:
As soon as such plans and books of reference have been deposited and notice thereof has been given, notaries-
Of course the minister knows what notaries in Quebec are. I continue:
-passing acts concerning immovables indicated on such plan are bound to designate such immovables by the number given to them upon such plan and in the book of reference-
I take it that in Quebec the book of reference is more or less the act of birth of the land. The notaries go by that. If a property or part of one is sold or expropriated the description of that part of the property is in the book listed under the number given by the minister of lands and forests. Am I right in assuming that the words "book of reference" in this bill and in the Railway Act mean only the technical description of the land one wants to expropriate?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, the technical description is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 29-Plan, profile, book of reference.
Mr. Robichaud:: Would the minister give us an explanation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 29 was held over for the same reason clause 27 was held over and the explanation is the same.


Gabriel Roberge: And the reference is to the book of reference?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: We go now to clause 51 and the amendment thereto.
On clause 51-Tolls to be approved.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, clause 51 was held over in order to consider an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West. As the clause now stands a tariff would be effective without any action by the board. Under the proposed amendment it would be necessary for the board to approve the tariff before it became effective and there would have to be an application and a hearing.
The discussion on clause 55 referred also to clause 51 and the hon. member for Ottawa West asked what would be the position of a pipe line company that carried oil for only two or three companies and was not actually
National Energy Board a common carrier. Under the bill the tariff provisions would apply but I think there would probably be little or no occasion for the application of the anti-discrimination and other rules respecting tariffs. Such a company would be inconvenienced if it had to make an application to the board and have a hearing before its tariffs could be effected. Under clause 51 as it stands such a company would simply file its tariffs and they would be effective unless the board took some action. We think the amendment will be ineffective for the reason I stated earlier, that there would have to be an application and a hearing.


Charles Edward Rea: Is the committee
ready for the question on the amendment?
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 74.


Charles Edward Rea: I declare the
amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 54-Suspension of tariff.
Gordon Minto Churchill: I asked that it stand. At
that moment I was considering an amendment that had been placed in front of me. I have no amendment to suggest to clause 54.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 58-Contracts limiting liability of company.
Gordon Minto Churchill: This clause was held until
we had decided what to do with clause 51. The hon. member for Ottawa West pointed out that it would be necessary to determine 51 before 58 could be passed. We have now decided with regard to 51.


Charles Edward Rea: There is an amendment to clause 58. The Minister of Public Works moved:
That subclause (1) of clause 58 be amended by inserting the words "is included as a term or condition of its tariffs as filed or" after the word "notice" in line 32 on page 16.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 61-Tolls for transmission of gas.
Gordon Minto Churchill: This clause was held up
at the special request of the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Mr. Winch:: I still do not understand it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 62-Powers of company.
Gordon Minto Churchill: An amendment has been moved to this clause, but the hon. member for Essex East asked certain questions concerning clause 62 and also clause 66. The

National Energy Board first question was whether the expression "crown land" applied to provincial crown land, and he suggested that parliament would have no jurisdiction to deal with provincial crown lands.
The authorities are quite clear that parliament has jurisdiction to provide for the taking or expropriation of provincial crown lands. The whole of part V consists of company powers, which are carried forward from the present Pipe Lines Act. We did not make any changes that would reduce the powers the companies now have because that would, in effect, be retroactive legislation interfering with vested rights.
Whether the particular clauses in this bill do or do not apply to crown lands is a matter of interpretation and that is something for the courts to decide if any question should arise.
That is the explanation my hon. friend was asking for concerning clause 62 and clause 66. If my hon. friend is satisfied with that I have something to say with regard to the amendment which we ourselves moved.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you read the amendment, please.


Charles Edward Rea: The Minister of
Public Works moved:
That clause 62 be further amended by inserting (1) after the number "62" in line one on page 18 and by adding thereto the following subclause: "Lines for transmission of sulphur."
(2) for the purposes of this part the expression "pipe line" includes a line for the transmission of sulphur or sulphur compounds obtained from an oil or gas well, any product thereof, connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces or extending beyond the limits of a province.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In connection with this there was some discussion the other night. I think, perhaps for clarification, I should add that this subclause confers powers under part V on companies operating an interprovincial pipe line for the transmission of sulphur. The objection made to this was that it would confer wide powers on many small companies. It should be pointed out that the amendment would apply only to a "company" as defined, namely a company incorporated by special act of the parliament of Canada operating an international or interprovincial pipe line for the transmission of gas or oil. Under the proposed amendment such a company would be able to exercise its powers in relation to a sulphur pipe line if it has one. The amendment would therefore apply only to those companies that already have these powers in relation to an oil or gas pipe line. The proposed amendment to clause 75, which is related to this, will ensure that the company


will be subject to the same control in exercising its expropriation powers in relation to sulphur pipe lines as it is in relation to other pipe lines.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 66-Crown lands.
Gordon Minto Churchill: An explanation has been made with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East. An amendment will be moved by my colleague.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 66 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause:
Exception.
(4) This section does not apply to anything done pursuant to leave obtained therefor under section 76.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 75-Expropriation provisions of Railway Act incorporated.
Charles Edward Rea: There is an amendment to clause 75.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Was clause 75 allowed to stand on account of clause 76 which has to do with the same problems that will affect clause 75?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, that is correct, but there is also an amendment to clause 75.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Lionel Chevrier: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL TAX-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS ACT FURTHER EXTENSION OF INCOME TAX RATE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for the second reading of Bill No. C-41, to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.
(Translation):
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are now discussing and which has been discussed before, on various occasions in this house, is the federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements act.

Tonight, and before coming to the particular section mentioned in the bill, i.e. clause 12, I would like to deal to some extent with certain general principles connected with the sharing of taxes between the provinces and federal government.
The fiscal problem now existing between the federal government and the provinces, Mr. Speaker, is both very significant and very simple.
It is very significant because, it is a basic aspect of our constitution, and also because one of the main sources of financing the provincial and federal governments depends on its being solved.
The problem is also very simple to my mind, except for those who want to confuse the issue in order to be able to say later that it cannot be solved, at least for the present. There are also those perfectionists who agree to consider drastic and permanent solutions only. They should, however, realize that it is impossible to have such solutions accepted, and that their unbending attitude frequently remains sterile and prevents any gradual improvement, which very often is the only one possible.
All serious-minded people, who have made the effort to study those arrangements and to consider the over-all aspect of the matter will admit today that, according to our constitution, the federal and the provincial governments have concurrent rights in the field of direct taxation. There are not-though some people will maintain there are-any priority rights in this field; such rights, indeed, cannot exist without limitation, as otherwise they would lead up, through their exercise, to exclusive powers. In fact, if, for instance, the provinces had a right to some priority, or else, if they had a priority right to direct taxation, such priority would not necessarily stop at 50 per cent, nor at 75 per cent of that source of taxation; it could go as far as 100 per cent and, indeed, it would then become an exclusive right.
Our constitution therefore provides for concurrent rights in that field, and even if some of us wish that it be otherwise, I am convinced that this aspect of our constitution will not change in the near future. I am convinced, and the experience of the past proves it-the experience of the past is conclusive in that regard-that neither the federal government nor the provinces will agree to surrender the rights which the con-
Dominion-Provincial Relations stitution recognize as being theirs in the field of direct taxation. Those who seek a solution of such a sweeping nature to the fiscal problem lack realism or sincerity. Contending to aim at perfection, as they see it, and which is impossible of achievement, they do not seek to achieve improvements which, indeed, would be possible.
Therefore, faced with those consequences and in presence of the situation as we find it today, we must accept, in a practical way, the existence of those concurrent rights. Such is, in my opinion, the basic fact at the root of the whole fiscal problem.
Another fundamental aspect of that matter is the fact that the federal government and the provinces will wish to go on exercising concurrent rights. Besides, the very exercise of those concurrent rights, without any limitation or corrective action, would end up in a double taxation pattern which would become excessive and would lead to unacceptable regional discrimination, in view of the highly different returns from direct income in the various provinces. Now, we know, by experience, that all Canadians, in every province, are opposed to double taxation which would result in adding unduly' to the taxpayers' burden, but on the other hand, they support the steps taken by the federal government to equalize the yield of direct taxes as between the various provinces.
Out of this general desire of Canadians, there arise two basic considerations underlying any practical solution to the fiscal problem. In view of the fact, as I said earlier, that both the federal government and the provinces can be expected to continue exercising their concurrent rights in the field of direct taxes, there must be specific arrangements between both levels of government so as to mitigate, and if possible to avoid, the problems involved in double taxation. Furthermore, such arrangements should provide for a system of equalization payments as a means of equalizing the tax yield between the provinces, through a redistribution of tax revenues for the benefit of the less favoured provinces, so that such provinces too may face their constitutional responsibilities.
From these findings, Mr. Speaker, there arise two definite requirements. I should like to discuss both these requirements which, I think are of equal importance in this discussion. First, there must be fiscal arrangements as between the federal government and the provinces, to enable both levels of government to exercise their rights, while avoiding as much as possible the
4274	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations serious problems involved in double taxation. Second, such fiscal arrangements must involve equalization payments, because otherwise, tax revenues will be neither lair nor equitable.
But there is more. I do not think it is possible, nor indeed desirable, that either the federal government or the provinces should accept a limitation in the exercise of their constitutional taxation rights. The sovereignty of those governments and the flexibility that is so necessary to a fiscal policy, especially in a federal state, are inconsistent with such limitation. But then, if fiscal arrangements should not be such as to limit taxation rights of both types of government, other than the limits already set out in our constitution, the only practical result that we could expect of such arrangements is the establishment of a reasonable area within which the provinces could exercise their taxation rights, while avoiding double taxation and an increased tax burden for the taxpayers.
It is in that way that the main purpose of the fiscal arrangements is to fix the limits within which double taxation will be avoided, but those arrangements should in no way limit the right for the exercise of this right by the parties concerned, that is, the provincial and federal governments.
I submit that all the basic requirements of an acceptable and practical solution of the taxation problem were met in the fiscal arrangements introduced under the government of the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent.
Those unquestionable merits were recognized by Mr. Drew himself when in 1956, speaking in the house, on the bill then before parliament, he said the following as found in Hansard of July 16, 1956, page 5993; I quote:
(Text):
-I wish to make it quite clear that the present formula has some merits in the acceptance of certain very important principles. As the minister pointed out, the proposal contemplates the continuance of a form of tax rental agreement, arrangements for federal collection of payments under those agreements, a tax equalization plan, a provincial stabilization fund which will protect municipalities against a severe drop in their revenues, and in turn an abatement in the federal taxation fields of personal income, corporation taxes and succession duties. The acceptance by the federal government of the place of the provinces and the right of the provinces in the field of income tax, corporation tax, succession duties and other direct taxes is, in itself, a welcome evidence of a return to the position which was always accepted without question over the years between 1867 and 1941, when the wartime tax agreements were signed.
(Translation):
Those were the words spoken by the leader of the opposition at the time. Even Mr. 

Duplessis who, you will agree, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, since you have a wealth of experience in politics, even Mr. Duplessis, who is not easily satisfied when making requests of others, stated at the end of the conference in March 1956 that the solution suggested by the federal government of the day was a great step in the right direction. However many of his followers in this house are still bitterly critical of the spirit and the substance of the arrangements then introduced. Criticism is easy, of course, especially when it is vague and when it is voiced from a particular standpoint. But I still have to hear in this house any of those hon. Conservative members from Quebec make a concrete proposal Which stands the least chance of being accepted by the government concerned.
Mr. Speaker, they are opposed to the substance and to the very principle of the present arrangements. The Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) stated in the house, on October 18, 1956, that he was still opposed to the subsidies derived from the present fiscal arrangements, and that the fiscal proposals which would be submitted by the Conservative government, during the conference held in November 1957, would have a basis quite different from the one on which was predicated the formula put forward by the Liberals. However, the province of Quebec is still receiving this year, in 1959, about $55 million from the federal government in the way of subsidies which the Solicitor General described as ultra vires when he sat on this side of the house, in the opposition.
As for the Conservative members from Quebec who were elected for the first time in March, on March 31, 1958, to be accurate, they must remember that during the last election campaign they bitterly denounced the present fiscal arrangements as recognizing the theft by the federal government of provincial taxation rights. They must also recall that they took the solemn undertaking to denounce these fiscal arrangements and to see to it that the constitution be complied with. They now have the opportunity to carry out their solemn pledge to the Quebec voters and they cannot do it any other way than by voting against this motion whose fundamental aim is to extend the very fiscal arrangements that they condemned, and to come up with another formula. I hope, Mr. Speaker that they will have the courage to carry out their solemn pledge.


Azellus Denis: They have the courage to stay behind the curtains.


Lionel Chevrier: During the last election, they set themselves up as champions of provincial autonomy which they promised to defend any time and anywhere. It was easy for them to make such statements in the province of Quebec during the last election. This is the place and now is the time for them to fight, here in parliament, on that bill now before us, and to show that they have the courage that befits honest and sincere people.
So far, in this debate, they have been conspicuous by their silence. We have heard but a single speech, very brief and very mild, by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn).
Is that how they mean to fight the great battle for autonomy? They will not always be able to escape their responsiblities by remaining silent. When the time comes for them to vote on the principle of this bill, I hope that they will not have the cowardice to leave the house as they did on that occasion that we all know about, and to abstain from voting. But then if they stay here, they will have to make a choice: either they will vote against the bill in order to keep their solemn pledge, or they will have to admit that they made a mistake before the last election and that thereby they have misled the voters of the province of Quebec.


Azellus Denis: Especially that.


Lionel Chevrier: Whatever the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) may think, public life also requires the respect of the pledged word. Those hon. Conservative members from the province of Quebec might say, in self-defence, that they have not changed their position, but that they want to support this bill pending the introduction by this government of a better formula. It is in this way, for instance, that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) has justified here the new position he has taken on the matter of grants to universities.
However, such an attitude is not only wrong, it is unacceptable. To my mind, such an attitude cannot be countenanced, neither by us who are aware of the situation nor by those to whom promises were made. Mr. Speaker, when some legislation allegedly violates a country's constitution, when such arrangement is held to be an usurpation of provincial constitutional powers, when anybody states his opposition in principle to any bill, he cannot decently favour the legislation by merely waiting, under the pretext that in some hazy future, a more acceptable formula might turn up.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
As a matter of fact, even that unjustifiable pretext cannot be advanced under the circumstances, because it is clear that the government is not attempting to improve fiscal arrangements in the manner indicated by Conservative members from Quebec before the last election. As a matter of fact, by failing, as we have tried to point out on many occasions on this side of the house, to call a real conference of premiers, which could take decisions in this matter, and by organizing a series of meetings of officials who cannot even discuss the true issues, because they have not enough authority to do so, the government reveals its desire to multiply delays, without seeking a new solution, so as to avoid too much embarrassment to certain provincial premiers.
It is indeed rather improbable, Mr. Speaker, that an entirely new solution can be found which would be acceptable to all the governments concerned, or even that fundamental aspects of the present fiscal arrangements might be improved, in view of the divergent interests and attitudes of the various provinces and the federal government. From the viewpoint of the provinces, the best way to improve those arrangements would, as I said a few moments ago, consist in widening the area within which provincial governments may apply their rights of direct taxation without resorting to double taxation. Besides, that is the kind of improvement that all provincial premiers did propose, except, of course, Mr. Duplessis, who proposed nothing definite at the conference of November 1957, which, as we all know, was adjourned after two days, and it is the kind of improvement that the federal government refuses, in spite of everything and everybody, notwithstanding the requests made from this side of the house, to reconvene the provinces in order to discuss and consider that matter.
As we know, the field within which the provinces may exercise their rights without imposing double taxation, amounted last year to 13 per cent of the personal income tax, to 9 per cent of profits, or about 24 per cent of the corporation federal tax and finally, to 50 per cent of federal estate tax. It should not be overlooked, however, and that is the important point, that the rate of 13 per cent on personal income tax does not change every year with the rate of the federal tax. Under present arrangements, it is 13 per cent of the federal tax, as determined in 1956, so that the field of taxation exclusively entrusted to the provinces increases as the federal tax decreases, but it decreases, on the other hand, as the federal tax increases.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
During the 1957 election campaign the Conservative party promised to treat both the provinces and the municipalities with generosity. It pledged itself, on behalf of the federal government, to vacate a greater part of the direct taxation field, in order to allow the provinces to better utilize that source of income without increasing the total burden of taxation.
We recall that the arrangements, as set up by the Liberals, were on the basis of 10-9-50, but that the premier of Ontario, who claimed he was certain to obtain what he wanted if the Conservatives came into power in 1957, demanded a 15-15-50 arrangement. But what happened, Mr. Speaker? In January 1958, the Conservative government, facing a new election, took a very timid step in the direction it had promised to follow, and raised from 10 to 13 per cent the provincial share of the federal tax on personal incomes.
Today, the government puts forward a measure aimed merely at extending for a further year the arrangement made in 1958. That is the purpose of the amendment now before the house.
However, there is another angle to the situation, and it is one which should not be overlooked, because it does reveal the present government's true attitude on the problem of sharing direct taxes. Last year, as I said, the provinces received 13 per cent of the federal tax on personal incomes, in accordance with the figure set in 1956. On the other hand, the federal government this year increased the rate of its tax on personal incomes, and as a result will be receiving, on an annual basis, approximately $130 million more than last year. However, the share of the provinces remains the same, because it is still based on the year 1956. The upshot of all this is that in 1959-60, the federal government will be increasing its share of the tax on personal incomes over last year's figure and, as a result, the provinces will have to be satisfied with a much smaller share than last year in that field of taxation.
However, that is not all. It will be recalled that under the tax arrangements introduced by the Liberals, 9 per cent of corporation profits went to the provinces, while 38 per cent of those profits went to the federal government. The provincial share was therefore about 24 per cent of the federal share. The Conservatives made no change to that

situation last year. This year, however, the federal government raised the tax on corporation profits by 3 points. Now, what does this mean? It means that the share granted exclusively to the provinces remains at 9 per cent of profits, whereas the federal government share is now raised to 41 per cent. The provincial share in this field, therefore, is now only 22 per cent of the federal share.
Before the 1958 election, the federal government had thus done something in favour of the provinces. But that like so many other things done by this government, was to a very large extent purely electoral and, once the election was over, the federal government quickly took to a course diametrically opposite to the one that it had solemnly pledged to follow.
I do say now-and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) himself will correct me if I am wrong-that the federal government will receive this year a larger proportion of the revenues from direct taxation than it would have received on the basis of the taxation rates established by the former federal administration.
It is true that we must not expect the Conservative government to do all it has pledged to do during its first years of administration. We already have heard that we should learn to wait. We should learn to be patient. But we have a right to ask, at least, that the government aim its policy in the direction that it has pledged to follow. Well, it is precisely the contrary that is happening now. Having pledged to aim its policy in this direction, the government follows another course. How can we trust a government that says one thing and acts differently? And, I might add, not only in the field of taxation, but in many other fields. How can the government be sincere in organizing meetings, the sole purpose of which can only be to give more room to the provinces in the field of direct taxation, when it decides, even before those meetings are held, to take a larger share in this field?
In fact, the new attitude of the federal government in the field of federal-provincial relations becomes increasingly clear since the budget speech of the Minister of Finance. As I have said earlier, the Minister of Finance has announced at that time that he would take from now on a larger share of the revenues from direct taxation. Such is the inevitable effect of the tax increases which were then decreed.

However, the Minister of Finance has gone further, he has decreed his own new formula. Here is a statement he made in a speech delivered at the Seigniory Club on May 26 last:
(Text):
One reason for bringing the budget this year into better balance was our desire to reduce the heavy pressure of new federal government borrowings on the bond market and on the interest rate structure and to leave more for essential financing by provincial and municipal governments and business.
(Translation):
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance then stated that the federal government had decided to levy further taxes in order to allow municipalities and provinces to borrow more. Such is the new deal the Conservative government suggested to the provinces at that time. The government tells them: "Borrow,-borrow more; as for me, I shall tax". The government takes up more space in the taxation field so as to leave municipalities and provinces a wider range in the borrowing field. What it doesn't say, however, is that it is not costing the government any more to tax more, while thanks to its monetary policy, borrowing becomes every day more costly to the provinces and the municipalities.
As may be noted, Mr. Speaker, the election promises made by the Conservative party in the field of fiscal relations in 1957 and 1958 have been completely disallowed. The Conservative government, far from treating the provinces with more generosity than did the Liberals, as it had promised, takes over a greater share of direct taxation. It completely ignores the concrete proposals put forward by the majority of provincial premiers in November 1957. More than that, it even refuses to meet them again.
It is for all those reasons that the Conservative members from Quebec should now have the courage of their convictions and denounce such betrayal. They must do so, in the name of their principles; they must do so on account of the solemn pledge they made during the last federal election; they must do so for the sake of their electors to whom they gave that pledge, but they must do so also, and perhaps above all, on account of Mr. Duplessis, who is responsible for their presence here in the house.
(Text):


Erhart Regier: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Has the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) spoken before in this debate?
Statement on Treasury Bill Issue Mr. Regier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: If I can get the attention of the house-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Lionel Chevrier: Did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) want to say something?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was going to ask if the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was moving the adjournment of this debate?


Mr. Speaker:: I asked the hon. member if he had spoken before in the debate. It seemed to me that he had spoken on May 6.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is my hon. friend speaking on this subject?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Evidently I shall not have the opportunity tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: We will deal with this matter when it comes up again.


FINANCE
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the leave of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of making a brief announcement which I am prompted to make by reason of the interest in the subject expressed yesterday by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in a question he asked on orders of the day. I have very much pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in announcing to the house that-


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister leave of the house to make the announcement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the announcement-


Alexis Pierre Caron: No. Mr. Speaker, you asked for the permission of the house and I refuse to give my permission.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In that event, Mr. Speaker, the announcement will simply have to be made outside the house. I was asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition to make an announcement on the subject in the house, and I am endeavouring to do that. If I am precluded from doing so, the nature of the announcement is such that it will have to be made now outside the house. It could not be made earlier, and therefore I am in that position. As the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) is not prepared to accord me
4278	HOUSE OF
Statement on Treasury Bill Issue permission to revert to motions for the purpose of making this very short announcement, then the announcement will have to be made outside the house. I am entirely in the hon. member's hands.


Mr, Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for the unanimous consent on this side of the house to allow the announcement to be made?


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, will the house give the minister leave to make the announcement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will still oppose it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the announcement is brief. I have much pleasure in informing the house that on our invitation for tenders for one-year treasury bills which closed at five o'clock this afternoon the offering of up to $200 million has been very heavily oversubscribed. The full $200 million has accordingly been allotted. The average price is $94,780 and the equivalent yield 5.492 per cent.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the house, of course, will be pleased at the acceptance of the minister's requirements, but it is obvious that there seems to be a very heavy discount with respect to price, and the effective rate is exceedingly high for the short term. I was wondering if the minister could inform the house whether or not these bills would be eligible for deposit by the commercial banks for the central bank for their reserve requirements, whereas the short term bonds which are offered for suggested conversion would not be so eligible for that deposit.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, we will look at the implications of the minister's announcement and we expect we will have a number of words to say on it at the time of interim supply. I should like to point out as a question of privilege that on May 6 last I entered the debate only on a point of order, and I did not in any way participate in the debate.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would reply to the question I raised as to whether or not the treasury bills would be allowed as reserves


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the leader of the house what will be the business for tomorrow? I presume the house leader will realize that we have co-operated to the fullest extent today and got through with a great deal of business. I hope he will do likewise with us in the business he has to announce.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall commence with interim supply and then take third reading of the national energy bill; following that, second reading of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act; then second reading of the act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act; then item No. 17 on today's order paper, the resolution providing for additional judges; item No. 12, a resolution preceding an amendment affecting pensions for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; item No. 11, a resolution concerning the Defence Services Pension Act and item No. 14, a resolution concerning the Canadian National Railways.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We close tomorrow at six.


Howard Charles Green: I was hoping the hon. member would be away. On Thursday, unless third reading of the national energy bill has not been concluded, we will take estimates commencing with the estimates of the Department of Public Works, and then those of the Department of Fisheries.


Lionel Chevrier: May I presume on the house leader's good will and ask him if he would indicate what we will do on Monday.


Howard Charles Green: The intention is to take a one-day supply motion. This again is provided that the national energy bill has gone through.


Hazen Robert Argue: With the vote at 8:15?


Howard Charles Green: That is the understanding.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any of the scientific personnel employed at the national museum of Canada since 1935, not held British or Canadian citizenship at the time of their appointment?
2.	If so, what were their names and the positions they held at the museum, in what country were they born and of what country were they citizens at the time of their appointment, for what period did each hold a position at the museum and for what reason was their employment terminated?
3.	From what universities did each hold degrees, and what positions had each held prior to his or her employment by the national museum of Canada?
4.	Were any of these appointments to the museum made through the usual civil service competition?
5.	If so, which persons were so appointed, on what date, did the civil service competition take place, and of what country was each person a citizen at the time they made application for employment under this competition?
6.	Were any of these appointments to the museum staff not made through the usual civil service competition?
7.	If so, which persons were not so appointed, on whose recommendation and by what authority were they appointed, and on what date were they appointed?
8.	Did any of the above personnel subsequently take out Canadian citizenship papers after their appointment to the museum staff?
9.	If so, what persons did so, and on what date did they become Canadian or British citizens?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of
Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Asen Balikci, Anthropologist 2, Turkey, Turkey, October 29, 1954, to the present, N/A.
(b)	Howard Alvin Crum, biologist 3, United States of America, United States of America, September 20, 1954, to the present, N/A.
(c)	Wann Langston, Jr., biologist 3, United States of America, United States of America, October 20, 1954, to the present, N/A.
(d)	Richard Stockton MacNeish, biologist 5, (senior archaeologist) United States of America, United States of America, June 20, 1949, to the present, N/A.
(e)	Lawrence Oschinsky, anthropologist 2, United States of America, United States of America, September 1, 1958, to the present, N/A.
3.	(a) Mr. Balikci, B.PH., Academie de Grenoble, L.Sc., University of Geneva, B.L.S., University of Ottawa, member of various ethnographic expeditions to North Africa.
Questions
(b) Dr. Crum, B.S. Western Michigan University, N.S., University of Michigan, Ph.D., University of Michigan, Instructor, Western Michigan University, Teaching Fellow, University of Michigan, Research biologist and acting assistant professor of botany, Leland Stanford Jr. University, assistant professor of botany, University of Louisville, Ky.
(3) Dr. Langston, B.S. University of Oklahoma, M.S. University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., University of California, Instructor in geology, Texas Technological College, Lubbock, Lecturer, department of paleontology, University of California, in charge of laboratory of Paleontology, University of California.
(d)	Dr. MacNeish, B.A. University of Chicago, M.A. University of Chicago, Ph.D., University of Chicago, District supervisor, museum project, works progress administration, archeological supervisor, Illinois state museum, archeological supervisor and fellow, University of Michigan, Director, archeological field school, University of Kentucky.
(e)	Dr. Oschinsky-B.A. Brooklyn College, M.A. University of Chicago, Ph.D., University of Zurich, Lecturer in anatomy, Makerere College medical school, Kampala, Uganda, British East Africa, Instructor in physical anthropology, graduate school of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Instructor in anatomy, Howard University medical school, Washington, D.C. Visiting lecturer in physical anthropology, University of Arizona.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) Mr. Balikci; August 17, 1955; Turkey, (b) Dr. Crum; February 23, 1954; United States of America, (c) Dr. Langston; April 20, 1954; United States of America, (d) Dr. MacNeish; April 23, 1949; United States of America, (e) Dr. Oschinsky; May 23, 1958; United States of America.
6.	No.
7.	N/A.
8.	No, but each one subscribed to the oath of office required by civil servants of Canada.
9.	N/A.


DR. RICHARD S. MACNEISH  POSITIONS HELD
Mr. Argue: 1.	What position does Dr. Richard S. MacNeish now hold at the national museum of Canada?
2.	What positions has he held at the museum since he was first appointed, on what date did he take up each, and by what authority was he appointed to each?
3.	Was a civil service competition held for any of these appointments?
4.	If so, for which ones?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of
Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Biologist 5-in charge of archaeology section.

Questions
2.	Anthropologist grade 3; appointed June 6, 1949; authority civil service certificate dated July 8, 1949.
Anthropologist grade 4; effective January 1, 1953; authority civil service certificate dated March 31, 1955 (promotion).
Anthropologist grade 6; effective April 1, 1955; authority civil service certificate dated May 31, 1955 (promotion).
Biologist 4; effective April 1, 1955; authority civil service certificate dated March 13, 1957 (promotion).
Biologist 5; effective April 1, 1958; authority civil service certificate dated June 27, 1958 (promotion).
3.	and 4. Yes. Original appointment as anthropologist 3 was made through civil service commission competition.

Wednesday, June 3, 1959