1959-05-29

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I wonder if the Minister of Labour is in a position to advise the house as to the result of negotiations since Monday last in the matter of the dispute at the Polymer Corporation in Sarnia.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Taylor, who has been appointed mediator, had to leave for a few days to go to Vancouver but he asked both parties to continue their talks. It has been left in that position for the moment. I expect to see Mr. Taylor back with both parties on Monday.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he seen and would he care to comment on an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail of May 27 entitled, "Undiplomatic Diplomats"?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I did see the editorial in question, and the only observation I should like to make upon that matter at this time would be that an exercise of greater restraint in controversial utterances on the part of diplomats in general in Canada could not but be regarded most favourably, I think, by Canadians as a whole.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister anything further to report with regard to the final payment on the 1957-58 wheat crop? The minister said to me on May 18 that he expected a report from the board almost momentarily.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the pool for 1957-58 was closed out on May 15 and the cheques will be issued commencing the first week of June.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for his very favourable answer. Is he able to inform the house of the amount of the final payment per bushel?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not that information in front of me.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government yet been able to reach any decision on the request of the sunflower growers of Manitoba for a floor price, and would the minister give the house a statement on this important question?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been dealt with. The agricultural stabilization board have been authorized to provide a support price for sunflower seed to the producers of this crop in the province of Manitoba at 4 cents per pound, Canada No. 1 grade, for the 1959 crop. The prescribed price is 87 per cent of the 10-year average price of 4.6 cents per pound.
This crop is mainly grown in Manitoba and is an important secondary cash crop to producers in this area, with present plantings at about 45,000 acres. The products from crushing sunflower seeds are competitive with soybeans and other oil-bearing seeds, and the level of support, 87 per cent of the 10-year average, is the same as that provided for the soybean growers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture following the announcement he made concerning a floor price for sunflower seeds. When the minister mentions soybeans, of course, he always arouses me, and that in turn causes me to ask whether or not he is in a position to announce a floor price for

Inquiries of the Ministry
Ontario wheat following the request made by the Ontario wheat producers' association?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask if it be his intention to ask for another interim supply bill in order to carry on the public service beyond May 31.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The supply which parliament provided was in order to carry the expenses of government just to the end of this month. Subject to the arrangement of the business of the house by the house leader it was my hope that I might move for interim supply next Wednesday.


Frank Howard: Which is after May 31.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. I shall move for interim supply in order that we may have funds to meet our obligations on the 15th of June, for which we must have funds a week in advance.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform the house what progress, if any, he is making in the appointment of a secretary of state for external affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: I am making a wonderful degree of progress, and I think the Leader of the Opposition will have his curiosity satisfied at a very early date.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before the end of
the session?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister comment on reports that the United States congress appropriations committee has slashed by one-third the current appropriation for the Bomarc missile?
IMr. Martin (Essex East).]
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, the government of the United States, in the same way as the government of every other nation, are finding that the necessity of providing funds to meet defence purposes is causing a great strain on their budget; and they, like the government of Canada, are seeking every possible means of removing any duplication. They have been doing that through their various committees. A few weeks ago a Senate committee recommended considerable reductions in the Nike system of ground to air missiles, of which the Nike Hercules is the most advanced type. Yesterday or the day before a committee of congress recommended a reduction in the expenditures in connection with the Bomarc "A", which is the first of the Bomarc series of ground to air missiles.
The Bomarc "A", like the Nike Hercules, has rather a limited range. My understanding is that there have been no reductions recommended by the congressional committee in the development of the Bomarc "B" missile, which is the missile with which Canada expects to have its forces equipped in the near future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. Does the minister feel that this proposed reduction indicates a lack of confidence in the missile by the United States authorities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question seems to relate to matters beyond the administrative responsibilities of the minister to whom the question was directed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this matter
seems to fall within the administrative competence of the minister, in that the Canadian defence forces-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -are relying upon this missile for our air defence.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member then might direct his question in such a way as to get his information by a little more direct inquiry than an inquiry on what is going on in the United States congress.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, may I pose another question?


Mr. Pearkes:: The statement made by the hon. member a moment ago is quite incorrect. The Canadian government has never had any intention of employing the Bomarc "A", which is I understand the missile referred to in the congressional committee report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the Bomarc "B" has yet been tested successfully?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the hon. gentleman will remember that there was a press report only a couple of days ago that the Bomarc "B" had been tested.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but surely we do not have to get our information from press reports, and this particular press report did not indicate that there had been a successful testing.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps the minister would comment on the report in the Globe and Mail of this morning by Philip Deane of the Washington staff of the Globe and Mail, in which he is reported as saying that he has learned at first hand from one of the chiefs of staff of the United States armed forces that the Bomarc is indeed useless; and he was an air force man.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is not the information we have, Mr. Speaker. The official information I have is that the development of the Bomarc "B" is proceeding according to schedule.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister as up to date as Mr. Deane?
Seme hon. Members: Order.



R.C.A.F.-POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF HEADQUARTERS FROM JERICHO TO KITSILANO, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister give the house any information on a statement made in Vancouver two days ago by a member of this house, to the effect that the R.C.A.F. is going to be moved from Jericho and Kitsilano to Vancouver?


George Randolph Pearkes: The possible move of R.C.A.F. headquarters from Jericho to the Vancouver station, which I believe is Kitsilano, is under consideration.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position to assure the house that the government will not ask for an amendment to the Bank Act at
Inquiries of the Ministry this session which would raise the permissible interest rates that the banks are allowed to charge?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention on the part of the government to introduce any amendments to the Bank Act at the present session. It is a longstanding custom of parliament to revise the Bank Act every ten years following detailed hearings before the banking and commerce committee, and there appears to be no occasion to depart from that well established practice.



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL INVESTMENT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he has given any consideration to the early establishment of a national investment board so that the credit needs of the Canadian people may be met?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the answer, of course, is no. The establishment of any such body would not necessarily have the consequence that the hon. gentleman holds out for it at all. Credit problems and the strains on credit at the present time are attributable to the very rapid expansion and recovery of the Canadian economy. I think the hon. member has evidently quite underestimated the strength of the expansive forces at work in the Canadian economy today. Certainly the Canadian economy is recovering at a very rapid rate.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister in a position to inform the house what branch of the Canadian economy is undergoing this very rapid expansion that we have heard so much about?


Donald Methuen Fleming: A large number of them.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is perhaps a bit too broad a question for this stage of the proceedings.



INQUIRY AS TO LOANS TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder if the Minister of Labour could tell us whether he has the information I requested yesterday, as to whether or not any loans have been made by the government to the unemployment insurance commission since May 7.


Michael Starr: That information has not yet come to my desk. As soon as it does I will convey it to the hon. member.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance has returned to the city he could give us that information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to answer offhand as to specific amounts and dates. If my hon. friend had indicated to me his intention to ask this question I would have been glad to provide him with the amounts and dates. However, I believe the authority that was given in the two orders in council, to which reference was made during discussions in the house within the last fortnight, has not been exhausted as yet. I believe that at the moment the total outstanding is around $75 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then another $20 million has been added since my hon. friend spoke about it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The total amount at the time of the debate two weeks ago was $55 million, and my recollection is that the total at the moment is around $75 million. The authorization under the two orders in council was for $80 million, and that has not been exhausted as yet. I might also tell my friend, although this is not a final answer, the indications are that the total authorization is not likely to be required.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That is because of the amendments that are now before us?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is rather because of the substantial improvement in the employment situation.



NARCOTIC CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister taken note of the reported statement by the attorney general of British Columbia that all matters relating to narcotics are the responsibility of the federal authorities? Will he comment on the statement and give the house an indication of government plans relative to this most important and disturbing problem?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minisler of Juslice):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of what the attorney general of British Columbia said is not the same as the summary just given by the hon. member. The report upon which I believe the question is based refers to a statement made by the attorney general of British Columbia to a meeting of the Canadian congress of corrections in Vancouver. I am

informed that what the attorney general said there was by way of making a report on what British Columbia was doing in this field, and that he suggested that to deal with the matter satisfactorily there should be a greater assumption of responsibility by the federal authorities.
On that point I think about all I should say is that our planning committee is making a study of the question of the treatment of offenders who are also narcotic addicts. We are pursuing some preliminary inquiries in my department and with the Department of National Health and Welfare, and when we have the report of the committee I expect to be able to refer it to my colleagues and then make some final plans or recommendations with regard to what we should do in the narcotic field.


Harold Edward Winch: Can the minister give us any indication at all as to approximately when he expects to receive the report of the committee he has just mentioned?


Mr. Fulion:: I expect to receive the report by the end of this year.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. Will the minister make a statement to the house on the results of the meeting this week with members of the Vancouver city council in regard to the future expansion and the provision of additional essential facilities at the Vancouver international airport?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Vancouver city council called upon me to discuss questions relating to the operation of the Vancouver international airport by the city of Vancouver and the method of financing a new terminal building there.
I informed the delegation that government policy provided for grants in aid to terminal buildings at municipal airports served by class 1 scheduled services. The amount of the grant in aid would be related to the cost of the customs and immigration space, and a proportion of the public waiting room space in the building. I also informed them it would not be possible to go beyond this policy or to have the federal government finance the whole of the construction of the terminal building, either by loan to the city

or by direct financing of construction with the building thereafter being rented to the city.
Members of the delegation also inquired regarding the responsibility for the operation of the airfield, and I informed them that we were quite happy with the present efficient operation of the airfield, but that if at any time the city felt that it wished the federal government to take over full responsibility for operation, this was a matter we would be prepared to discuss with the appropriate municipal authorities.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and I hope my notice reached him in sufficient time. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the article in the May 23 edition of Saturday Night which indicates that the combines investigation branch is investigating charges that the Canada-United Kingdom freight conference has been using pressure tactics to keep freight rates up, and if so could the minister comment on this matter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman was kind enough to send me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have not had time to study the article in Saturday Night to which he refers, but I assume it refers to the freight conference which was the subject of an earlier inquiry directed to me by the hon. member for Quebec East. If the hon. gentleman will look at Hansard, page 1442, for February 27 of this year, he will see the question the hon. member for Quebec East asked and my answer. I think he will find there the information that he desires.



REFERENCE TO THEFT FROM PRIME MINISTER'S RESIDENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: May I ask
a question of the Prime Minister. We were all sorry to learn of the theft which took place at his residence, and I wonder if the Prime Minister had previously communicated with the Postmaster General concerning the installation of a burglar alarm or in connection with procuring the services of the R.C.M.P. as a matter of security?
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries THE MINISTRY



PROVISION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES

John George Diefenbaker: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. C-37, to provide for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries to ministers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May we
have some explanation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the amendments suggested by the Senate are simply as follows; that the governor in council may appoint one or more members of the House of Commons to be parliamentary secretary or secretaries to the ministers. Then there is an alteration, and the later clause providing for the parliamentary secretary or secretaries, to make that subsequent section conform, has been amended accordingly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be a sensible change, because it would make it possible for a minister or for the Prime Minister to have more than one parliamentary assistant, if that were considered desirable. I take it that is the purport of the amendment. It does seem to make the legislation a little more flexible and perhaps improves on the original bill. It will also make possible once the amendment is accepted, if it is accepted by the house, for this legislation to be put through and for the government to take the necessary action in regard to it.
The effect of this legislation is awaited by many members of the house, to use the Prime Minister's words, with a good deal of curiosity; but I would think that in view of the fact that the session is now so far advanced and that perhaps we have only another six or seven weeks to go, all being well, it would not be desirable to sanction such an expenditure of public money as would necessarily be involved in the appointment of these parliamentary secretaries so near the end of the session. Once the session is over they would have nothing to do. Therefore by delaying this measure, although it is unfortunate from one point of view, the government has at least saved some public expenditure.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as far as this group is concerned this seems a sensible amendment. It provides a certain flexibility to meet the administrative requirements and duties of the ministers. That is all I have to say in this connection; but could the Prime Minister inform the house

National Energy Board when he will relieve the state of tension in his own party by the appointment of these parliamentary secretaries?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had not known of this aggravated state of tension except for the assistance given by the members of the opposition, who have shown an unusual interest in this regard. However, I am glad to find that they concur in the suggested amendments. The Leader of the Opposition has said that it makes possible the appointment of two parliamentary secretaries to one minister, which would seem to indicate that probably one would be English speaking and the other French speaking, and I think that is a very desirable end.
I would say that the two parties opposite are not in complete agreement, though they sometimes have an unusual spirit of cooperation between them. However, the Leader of the Opposition has said today that the appointments should not be made immediately, and the hon. member for Kootenay West has said they should. I think on this occasion the views of the C.C.F. are going to receive more support from this side of the house than those of the official opposition.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed, from Thursday, May 28, 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.
The Chairman:: Shall clause 15 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, there were two clauses which were stood yesterday. I wonder if we could consider those first. They are clause 2, subclause (q), in the interpretation section, and clause 3, subclause 5, to which there was an amendment. It would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, if we could consider those before we go on any further.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it agreed that we revert to clause 2, subclause (q)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On subclause (q)-Special act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this suggestion was made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond; that for clarification the words "in this act" at the beginning of clause 2 should be succeeded by "and in any special


act", as occurs in the interpretation section of the act respecting oil and gas pipe lines. His suggestion has been considered, but as I stated last night paragraph (a) under clause 80 indicates that "this act shall be construed as incorporate with a special act". If the two acts are to be read together as one act then obviously the definition will apply. I do not think the suggested amendment would accomplish anything, and I would prefer to leave the clause as it stands.
I might say that a number of the special acts have been looked at in the interval. They all follow the same pattern; they do not have a definition section. Most of the expressions defined in this bill are not used in the special acts. They do, of course, refer to gas and oil and pipe lines, but the meaning of those terms in the special acts is quite clear from the context in which they are used and there is no inconsistency between those words and any terms in this bill.
Subclause (q) agreed to.
On clause 3, subclause 5-Eligibility.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, an amendment was moved last night to this subclause which is now under consideration. That amendment would have incorporated in this bill the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of section 14 and subsection 2 of section 14 of the Railway Act. This refers to the fact that no commissioner or officer of the board-that is, the board of transport commissioners-should have any interest, if I may paraphrase it, in stocks, shares, bonds, debentures or other securities of any company that comes under that act.
Our consideration of that amendment may be summed up as follows. The purpose of a provision such as subclause 5 is to ensure that the board will be disinterested and unbiased. In drafting such a provision as this it is not easy to cover all conceivable cases, as hon. members will understand, and the danger is that the provision will go too far. In the Railway Act there is no disqualification in a case where a member of the board is a director or other officer, as there is in the present bill. Moreover, the Railway Act prohibits a member of the board from indirectly being interested in any security of a company. Read literally, this would prohibit a member of the board from holding a participating life insurance policy with a company that had invested some of its funds in securities of a railway company.
In the present bill we have tried to draft a provision that would cover the normal cases without, at the same time, leading to

absurd situations. There is an important distinction between this clause and the present provision in the Railway Act, in that under the Railway Act there is only an obligation to report and get rid of an interest, whereas in the present bill there is an absolute statutory disqualification. I should think the present provision is wide enough to dissuade any member from being interested in bonds or securities of a company, because if he transgressed the section he would by operation of law become disqualified. It must also be borne in mind that the proposed board is to be a court of record, and it is a fundamental principle, whether stated in the statute or not, that a judicial tribunal must be unbiased.
I do not expect there will be any difficulty in applying this section so as to disqualify all those who ought to be disqualified, and I am therefore unable to accept the amendment that has been moved.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has said that he does not feel it is possible for the government to accept this amendment. May I ask him this question. Under the present clause would it not be possible for a person to hold debentures in a pipe line company and yet be eligible for membership of the national energy board?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Our consideration of this clause, with exactly such a situation as that in mind, is that a member of the board would, prior to becoming a member, divest himself of any holdings in a pipe line company. The way in which this clause is worded now-"if as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise- engaged in the business of producing, selling, buying, transmitting" and so on, would certainly dissuade a member of the board from retaining any holdings in a pipe line company, because if he did possess such holdings and that became evident he would automatically be disbarred from sitting as a member of the board, whereas under the Railway Act a disclosure of that nature only imposed upon the member of the board concerned the duty to divest himself of his holdings before continuing in office. This is a more stringent regulation than that contained in the Railway Act.


Mr. Dumas:: I think the argument of the minister is invalid, because at the present time the members of the board of transport commissioners, for example, cannot hold bonds or shares, and I am sure those commissioners must have life insurance. So the minister has not given us a valid reason for rejecting this amendment. As the bill stands, members of the energy board could hold debentures
National Energy Board and bonds in a pipe manufacturing company and still be eligible for office.
The Leader of the Opposition put a direct question to the minister. He asked whether a member of the board holding debentures in a pipe line company or in an oil company could carry out his duties. The minister did not answer that question. He said the provisions in the bill should be an incentive not to hold such bonds. We maintain that members of the board should be prohibited from holding bonds and debentures in a pipe line company.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister answer this question. If the possession of shares in a pipe line company disqualifies the holder from sitting on the board, why should not that disqualification also extend to the holding of debentures?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Our feeling is that we do not need to write specifically into this clause all the conceivable situations which might arise. We feel that as this clause is drafted no member of the board will subject himself to any suspicion of holding an interest in pipe lines with which he is dealing in a judicial capacity as a member of the board. We feel that that is sufficient to guard the public interest.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If that is sufficient, why put the clause in in its present form at all? Why say "shareholders" and not "debenture holders"? In any case I would point out that a great many debentures have share warrants attached to them.


Armand Dumas: That is correct. Debentures are issued, and to those debentures share warrants are attached, so that if a member of the board owns debentures he owns shares as well. I think the words "debentures and bonds" should be included.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not taking any inflexible attitude with regard to this question provided we can arrive at something satisfactory to the committee. Would it be agreeable to the committee if we added, at the end of the clause, the words "or if he holds any bond, debenture or other security of a company"?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: That undoubtedly would
materially improve the subclause, but it does not cover the case of shareholders in pipe manufacturing companies. A member might be a large shareholder in a pipe manufacturing company or in a wholesale pipe distributing company and still be eligible to sit on the board. That is not covered by the minister's proposal, and I wonder whether the hon. gentleman has something to say on that point, bearing in mind that there are now a good many wholesalers in this business.

National Energy Board


Mr. Lambert:: With all due respect to the hon. member for Ottawa West, why limit it to a pipe mill? What about the steel mill immediately back of the pipe mill? How far back is one to go?


George James McIlraith: I think the answer to that question is simple. The reason for not limiting it further is that a steel mill produces a very heavy tonnage of steel in a year of which only a very small percentage goes into the making of pipe. If the hon. member would look at the tonnage figures for steel production in Canada last year and then look at the figures for the number of tons of that steel which went into pipe construction he would find the answer quite readily.


Norman Platt Lambert: I suggest that the hon. member should consult the record with regard to certain steel mills in the country not located in this particular area; he might find the respective volumes are different from those he has suggested.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, in that regard they manufacture all sizes of pipe, and by far the greatest production is in casing pipes. Also, we have international competition in this sort of business. A great deal of pipe comes from England. If you want to be really specific about it, what about the coatings and coverings that go on the pipe? They are manufactured by firms such as Minnesota Mining. You just cannot carry it too far, because the industry is so vast and complex that you could relate it to literally thousands of products to the extent that it would become ridiculous.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the amendment suggested undoubtedly improves the clause, but the point is that an effort is being made by the clause to prevent persons engaged in the business from being eligible for appointment to the board. It is just a matter of finding some reasonable wording that will prevent persons who are directly concerned with that type of business from being appointed to the board. That is why my colleagues and I raised the question of ownership in a pipe manufacturing company. It is quite true that if someone wants to make a ridiculous case about it he could go back very far through industry and reduce the question to an absurdity. It is a matter of getting a practical line that is workable and which, when we put it into language in this clause, will have the effect of excluding those whose interests may be in conflict with their duties on the board.
I am pleased that the minister has seen fit to accept as much of the suggested amendment as he has indicated. I believe it does
a great deal to correct the situation, but I ask him to consider the further point I raised and comment upon it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is worthy of consideration, but I feel that under the circumstances we have adequate protection here. I feel we have had a meeting of minds. We are lifting right from the amendment in front of us those words, "bond, debenture or other security". If the hon. member who moved the amendment would withdraw it my colleague would be pleased to move the modification I suggested.


Armand Dumas: I agree, Mr. Chairman, subject to the minister moving his modified amendment.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, I move that the following words be added at the end of subclause 5:
-or if he holds any bond, debenture or other security in the company.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it the pleasure of the committee to accept the amendment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I think that amendment improves the clause and we on this side could accept it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George James McIlraith: Before the amended clause carries I want to be clear on one point. It is only a point of draftsmanship. Would the words "of a company" mean a company under the definition in clause 2?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, as defined in the bill.


George James McIlraith: That, of course, excludes oil companies, refining companies and so on?


Howard Charles Green: As I understand it this would include any pipe line company.


George James McIlraith: Yes, but the point I was interested in is this. That language at the end of the amendment has the effect of excluding any oil company. In other words, it makes eligible for appointment the largest bondholder in the country in one of the oil companies. Is that what was intended?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the hon. member for Ottawa West that in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Villeneuve this same expression was used.


George James McIlraith: Yes, it was "company" subject to the language in the Railway Act from which this seems to come. It covers a wide range of companies. I was wondering if the minister had given sufficient attention to the point I raised. I do not want to press it at all, but before the amendment finally carries I merely wish the minister to consider that point.


Howard Charles Green: That type of company is not expressed in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Villeneuve.


George James McIlraith: I do not think the argument that two things that are wrong make a thing right can be accepted.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What we considered was "company" as defined in this bill.


George James McIlraith: So the bond holder of an oil company is eligible for appointment?


Norman Platt Lambert: No. Read your clause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A shareholder is already excluded by the earlier part of the bill.


Norman Platt Lambert: Selling or buying.


George James McIlraith: "Selling or buying" are the words it would cover. I think that answers the point.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 15-Enforcement of board orders.


George James McIlraith: I take it that this is lifted from the Railway Act with appropriate changes of language?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am wondering about this clause, no matter what its origin may be. It reads in part as follows:
Any decision or order made by the board may. for the purpose of enforcement thereof, be made a rule, order or decree of the exchequer court or of any superior court of any province of Canada and shall be enforced in like manner as any rule, order or decree of such court.
One of the clauses makes the board a court of record. As the hon. member for Ottawa West pointed out last night, clause 22 of the bill gives advisory functions to the board that certainly would not be normal to a court of record. The exchequer court is a court in the full sense of the word and in the meaning we convey when we use the words "judicial process". Can the minister say whether his legal advisers have given full effect to the implications of this?
I will admit there is some extenuation in the words "for the purpose of enforcement thereof". It may be that the strictest interpretation is that the decree of this body may be regarded as having the same value as that of the exchequer court but only with respect to the question of enforcement. In any event it seems to me as a lawyer that one ought to be very careful in endowing a body that is not a court at all, even though the bill designates it as a court of record, with the
National Energy Board
authority and ail the dignity that attaches to a body of this kind, when it is not really a court.


George James McIlraith: We need it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My friend the hon. member for Ottawa West says that we need it. It may be necessary, but what we are doing is giving the board all the authority of a court for the purpose of the enforcement thereof. I should like the minister's comments.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is in agreement with our thinking on this line. He has seized upon the words that are important there, "for the purpose of enforcement thereof". Otherwise it is identical with section 50, subsections 1 and 2 of the Railway Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The rules of evidence and argument and that sort of thing would not apply? My hon. friend who is a lawyer can understand what I am concerned about. Someone comes before a board like this. If it was really a court you would be obliged to take into account the rules of evidence in a normal court, which would be quite impossible before a body like this. I take it nothing like that is intended.


Norman Platt Lambert: They set up their own rules.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I want to make sure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is because there is no enforcement machinery in the energy board; therefore this is the method by which its orders shall be enforced.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 16-General or particular orders.
George James McIlraith: I take it this clause is completely new. Is that right?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, it is new.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 17-Review of orders by board.
George James McIlraith: I take it that this one is from the Railway Act, with the appropriate changes having to do with the fact that the governor in council must approve the orders issued by the board. Perhaps the minister will assure us on that point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is substantially section 52 of the Railway Act. The major decisions of the energy board require the approval of the governor in council.


George James McIlraith: In addition to that, this clause provides that where there is any change or alteration in the order, the change
5152	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board or alteration cannot be made without the approval of the governor in council in cases where the approval is necessary.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


George James McIlraith: Of the original order?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the approval of the governor in council is required any change, therefore, in that type of order in its turn requires the approval of the governor in council.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would it be possible under this clause-and I ask the minister for information-for anyone concerned with a decision of the board to request a review? This clause does give the board the power to review, to alter, to rescind, and in that sense perhaps it makes provision for an appeal. But could someone concerned with a decision use this particular clause and ask for a review of a decision made by the board?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That might be done subject to the rules of procedure made under clause 7 on page 4 of the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would like to follow up this.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 7 says:
The board may make rules respecting
(b) the procedure for making applications, representations and complaints to the board-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That could be, but it seems to me the point made by the Leader of the Opposition is not without some value. Of course clause 18 provides for an appeal on questions of law and matters involving the jurisdiction of the board, but what the Leader of the Opposition seemed to be asking was whether or not the permissive review provided for in clause 17 would authorize an individual to take steps to appeal a decision that had been made by the board on a question, let us say, of fact, or on a matter that was outside the mischief of clause 18, involving a question of law or one of jurisdiction. This raises the whole question, of course, of the administrative practice of administrative tribunals, as to whether we are going to give individuals the right of appeal from an administrative board order, not only on a question of law but on a question of fact; or, once the board makes a decision on a question of fact, is that to be final, subject only to the approval of the governor in council?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, that was intended. Under this clause an individual might request the board to review, and so on, and under this clause the board has the power to take action.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the board have the power to take action of that kind unless it had made rules under clause 7, which is the procedure clause? The minister will appreciate our interest in this matter, not only our interest, but the interest expressed also in this appeal procedure by hon. members from Edmonton and Calgary. We were wondering whether this clause could be used to meet the points which they brought out in their statements on second reading.
The minister has now said that an individual can ask the board to review a decision, but unless rules of procedure were made by the board under clause 7, could the board do it? In other words, could the board take that action without the appropriate rules under clause 7? Is it the intention, or was it the understanding of the government in drafting this bill, that perhaps a procedure of this kind could be provided for under clause 7?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it is clear that the board already has the power under clause 17. Whether or not it writes out something by way of rules under clause 7, it still has the power.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the point the Leader of the Opposition makes is worth pursuing. There is no doubt that under clause 17 the board may review a decision it has already made, but there is no power inherent in clause 17, and certainly there is nothing directly mandatory in clause 7, that would permit an individual who feels that he has been aggrieved, or a company which feels that it has been aggrieved, to go to the board and say, "We would like you to review this matter". The board, while it has the power to review the matter, could very well take the position, "Well, we do not intend to review it"; the individual might say, "Well, here is further evidence", and so on. I do not feel that I know enough about this particular problem, but theoretically I can see an objection to the clause as drawn which does not allow an appeal. I will admit there is some difficulty, in that we would be asking the board to appeal its own decision.
Under clause 18 we can go to the supreme court, a new body altogether, but there the appeal is on a limited basis. Is it the government's intention to permit an appeal or a review by the board at the insistence of an applicant? That really is what it amounts to.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, we considered this very carefully, and the arguments advanced by the hon. member we have similarly considered, but on another occasion. We feel that this is satisfactory. The board has the power here to review, but we have not

made it mandatory on the board to consider any complaint raised by an individual, which could conceivably make for endless delay in dealing with matters which come before the board. Obviously this is intended to give the board an opportunity to consider any mistake which may be drawn to its attention, and I think it fully protects the rights of individuals.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 18-Appeal to supreme court.
Mr. Robichaud:: This clause has to do with appeals to the supreme court. Subclause 1 reads:
An appeal lies from a decision or order of the board to the supreme court of Canada upon a question of law, or a question of jurisdiction-
I realize that this is similar to the terms of section 53 (2) of the Railway Act. However, it might be pointed out that the power of the governor in council to vary or rescind an order of the board of transport commissioners has not been provided in this case as it was in section 53, subsection 1 of the Railway Act, which reads:
The governor in council may at any time, in his discretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the board, whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application; and any order that the governor in council may make with respect thereto is binding upon the board and upon all parties.
This part of the Railway Act, as I said, is not included in this clause. I might also refer to statements which were made during the debate on second reading. I do not want to quote them in full but, as found on page 3987 of Hansard, the hon. member for Edmonton West suggested that he would prefer to see acceptance of the principle of the right of appeal with respect to tolls and tariffs, that is, the setting of tolls and the revocation and variation of tolls and tariffs.
Then, as found on page 4040 of Hansard, the hon. member for Calgary South also suggested that perhaps it might be well to suggest to the government that they review the method by which we could give some right of appeal to the consumer and the industry to determine whether or not the board were being completely honest in making their assessment of what is considered a fair and reasonable rate.
Again, as found on page 4087, the hon. member for Calgary South interjected during the speech of the hon. member for Skeena and said that what he wanted in the bill was the right of appeal. In fact it was reported in Hansard as "repeal" and the hon.
National Energy Board member corrected it the following day to read "appeal". I should like to have the minister's comment on this clause of the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We gave very serious consideration to the subject matter which the hon. member has drawn to the attention of the committee. Our judgment was that the way we have set it out in the bill would be a satisfactory method of dealing with these problems of appeal. We considered the Railway Act, and we have had experience with regard to the type of appeal which emerges from the method outlined in that act. We considered that the new board, dealing as it will with highly complicated and technical matters, should have its findings thereon considered to be conclusive. Other matters of law and jurisdiction are, of course, dealt with in the normal manner.
As we have just discussed with reference to an earlier section, the board is empowered to make changes and review its decisions if new evidence is produced on the basis of some complaint by an individual, and we feel that in matters as highly technical as those which are involved in dealing with the problems that will face the energy board it would be better and more in the interests of the public if the board's findings of fact were held to be final and conclusive.
Very careful consideration has been given to this question, and we think it should be left in this way. If subsequent experience shows that something more should be done, parliament will have an opportunity to consider the matter. The question has been gone into with the greatest of care and we have concluded that this is a satisfactory method.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it that the minister and the government feel, after the consideration they have given to this matter, that there should be no right of appeal written into the legislation but that there is a possibility of appeal or review of the legislation if the board makes such a review possible. The government feels that that is as far as they can or should go at the present time in respect of the matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. I would not want the hon. member's words to be misinterpreted as an indication that there is no right of appeal in the act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. There is a right of appeal on matters of law but not on the facts.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Law and jurisdiction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think we should leave the legislation in this uncertain state. Is it the government's policy that if the board does not wish to listen to an application for review it need not do so; or is it the

National Energy Board intention that the board shall, on request by an applicant for review, be allowed to do so and under the bill that would be made legally possible by a provision in the rules provided for in clause 7 of the bill?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Our whole intention here was to leave this matter entirely to the board. My hon. friend, with his vast experience in the past, will know the difficulties that would be involved if some other method were used, and I am sure he will be inclined to agree that this is the way it should be done in a matter so complicated and technical.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 19-Orders and decisions final.
George James McIlraith: I want to refer to the first part of clause 19, where it is provided that decisions of the board are final and conclusive. Since there is no appeal on certain of the orders, for instance in the case of tolls, they become final immediately the order is made. There does not seem to be any provision, short of the board rehearing a case of its own volition, for a review or rehearing at that point, and this concerns me a little.
Would the minister care to elaborate on the point? I have no quarrel with the clause as applied to the ordinary cases, but I am somewhat concerned about those cases where there is no right of appeal and no method of obtaining a review other than if the board decides of its own volition to set up regulations that will permit it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps I have not followed the hon. member as closely as is required. I thought we had covered that when we were dealing with clause 17. Is it some extension of that to which he is making reference?


George James McIlraith: It is an extension of the discussion on clause 17. Subclause 1 of clause 19 is absolute in form. It makes every decision or order of the board final and conclusive. I am concerned that there is no way of amelioriating that position with respect to certain types of orders where there is no appeal, and I have used as an example decisions on tolls. There is no appeal with respect to such decisions, and it might be thought desirable that there should be a rehearing. As I read the bill I find no provision for a rehearing other than the one we have just discussed in clause 17. Nowhere in the bill is there any method of assuring a rehearing or an appeal. That is the point I want to have clarified. I may be wrong in my understanding of the situation, because I am not too certain on the point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the hon. member is correct. The way I would read clause 19

is that every decision or order of the board is final and conclusive except as provided by clause 17, which gives power to the board to review and make changes.


George James McIlraith: So that once an order is made there is no way of procuring a rehearing of that application?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Upon request the board, being a reasonable board, would under proper circumstances grant that review.


George James McIlraith: But only if the board sets up rules to provide for it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When the exchequer court hears a matter that arises out of certiorari or by mandamus, there is no review of the facts apart from questions of law?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, they would not deal with the facts.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
On clause 22-Board to make continuing studies and reports.
Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, this clause 22 is entirely new. It imposes upon the new board two duties. The first is that the board shall study and keep under review matters relating to the exploration for, production, recovery, manufacture, processing, transmission, transportation, distribution, sale, purchase, exchange and disposal of energy and sources of energy within and outside of Canada. The second duty is that the board shall prepare studies and reports and shall recommend to the minister from time to time such measures as it considers desirable in the public interest for the control, provision, conservation, marketing and development of energy and sources of energy.
At this point I should like to mention the fact that it may not be objectionable to entrust these advisory functions to the board. However, I wish to emphasize that a relatively small part of these activities fall within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. The major responsibilities in this field, as we know, lie within provincial jurisdiction. I should like also to point out that of those activities which do fall within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, few are really under the authority of the board.
I should like to ask a question of the minister, and I think he will be able to supply the answer. Did the minister make a study of all the departments or other agencies having something to do with energy or sources of energy? The second part of my question is, if so, how may agencies and branches of

departments have something to do with energy or sources of energy? We should like to have this information if it is at all possible.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We did make a study, and I shall produce it in just a minute. I have a list of these other bodies that have an interest in energy matters. I cannot lay my hands on that just at the moment, but certainly a little later I can give that information to the hon. member.


Armand Dumas: Will the minister allow this clause to stand, then?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, yes, that is quite
agreeable.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave):: Is
it the wish of the committee that the clause be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
On clause 23-Publication of studies and reports.


Mr. Bourgel:: This clause has to do with the publication of the studies and reports mentioned in clause 22. Now, if we look at the report of the royal commission on energy, recommendation No. 8 (b) and (c), we see that the commission recommended as follows:
8. That the national energy board shall have authority:
(b)	To give advice and make recommendations with reference to any matter relating to energy or sources of energy to any minister or to any board or agency constituted under the authority of any act of the parliament of Canada or at the request of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to any board or agency constituted under the authority of the legislature of any province.
(c)	To compile, study and review the statistics and estimates of the quantity, quality, location and availability of the various forms of energy and sources of energy in Canada so that the board may maintain an up-to-date inventory of Canada's energy resources.
This recommendation of the royal commission envisages that reports and studies containing such information will be of great assistance to the public in general, and particularly to those who are interested in questions relating to energy. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I think this board has the powers of a royal commission, and a royal commission always publishes its reports. The same practice is followed by the restrictive trade practices commission, so I feel sure the minister would have no objection if this clause were amended, because I am certain the minister does not want to have another series of hidden reports.
66968-9-264
National Energy Board
I should like to move, therefore:
That clause 23 be amended as follows:
That the word ''shall'' be substituted for the word "may" and that the words "with the approval of the minister" be deleted from the clause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am interested in the remarks of the hon. member, which were helpful, and were marred only by the use of one sentence in which he said that I would not likely want to have another series of hidden reports. 1 have had no hidden reports. The hidden reports were on that side of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the Minister of Labour on unemployment insurance?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have had nothing to do with hidden reports, except through complete misrepresentation of facts on the part of my friends who are not sitting here on the floor of the house.


Maurice Bourget: We want to prevent that; that is the purpose of the amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is one of the important duties of the energy board, to study and review in order that they may give advice and make recommendations on matters relating to energy and sources of energy. We have discussed this at the resolution stage and on second reading. We examined very carefully recommendation No. 20 of the Borden commission, and we did not accept all of it with regard to the publication of these reports. It is for that reason that we worded this clause 23 as it is worded, that such studies and reports of the board, made under this part, may be made public with the approval of the minister.
This does not limit the board; the board may make its investigations and carry out its proper functions. Some of the subjects listed for study might quite rightly include matters which the provinces consider to be subject to their jurisdiction, and the publication of reports simply upon the authority of the board might cause unforeseen difficulties on a jurisdictional basis. Consequently it seemed wiser that reports of this nature should be made public with the approval of the minister.
I think it would be quite wrong to make it mandatory for the board to publish every subject which they have had under internal review. That would limit the effectiveness of the board. There might be subjects they would want to review and look into very closely which they would feel hesitant about doing if they were compelled to publish their findings on some matter where perhaps confidential information had been obtained, or on a matter which went beyond the jurisdiction of the energy board. So with all these facts taken into account, as well as others which

National Energy Board might be stated, we considered it advisable to word the clause as it has been worded and we are not in a position to accept the amendment proposed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, we think the case which is being made to have these reports made public is an excellent one. We think it is a great mistake for the government and the minister to take the attitude that the reports which are made by this board, which is set up by parliament and paid for by parliament should be handed to the minister and that the minister himself should decide whether or not they should be made public.
Matters that the board can undertake for study, of course, embrace a very wide field, but I would say it is a field which should be disclosed, an area where the light of day should be let in. They may make studies as to the recovery, manufacture, processing, transmission, transportation, distribution, sale, purchase, exchange and disposal of energy and sources of energy within and outside of Canada. I think this is public business. When the board of transport commissioners hear evidence as to rates, all the evidence is taken down and it is available to the public. The studies the board of transport commissioners have been recently making into the equalization of freight rates have also been published, and we feel the government should not be taking this power to cover up and conceal reports that properly should be made public.
The amendment which is before the house is acceptable to us. However, we had an amendment drafted in somewhat different terms. With great respect to the legal advisers of the official opposition I, as a farmer, would say that this amendment drafted by non-legal people is a superior one. It would read as follows:
That clause 23 be amended by deleting the words "may be made public with the approval of the minister" and substituting the following:
"Shall be laid before parliament by the minister within 15 days of their completion, or if parliament is not then sitting on any of the first 15 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting."
This, of course, would nail the government down to a specific date.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. We are now discussing an amendment moved by the hon. member for Levis, not the English or other merits of another potential amendment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, that is hardly a point of order, because I am advancing a suggestion as to how the amendment now before the house could be improved, and I think it is very much in order. I go one step further than the amendment, because the amendment says the minister shall make

it public. We say not only should it be said that the minister shall make it public, but that parliament itself should detail by what means it shall be made public and within what limits.
This amendment, of course, is taken from many statutes, and would require that within 15 days of the meeting of parliament all reports in the hands of the minister at that time shall be laid before parliament, or if parliament is in session, then within 15 days of receipt of the report it shall then be made public. We feel that nothing but good can come from having these inquiries made public. We think if the people of this country themselves could learn from time to time of the fabulous profits which are being made in this industry, the public opinion which would be brought about because these reports had been made public would exercise itself and would result in lower rates.
The minister has said that if the reports were to be made public it would narrow the scope of the board and would make it more difficult for the board to make certain inquiries. I would say that the board would be in a much stronger position if it knew that the reports it made would be made public and would not just gather dust in some of the recesses of the minister's office, and that many many hours of very hard work would be wasted because the minister did not have time to give full consideration to the reports. If the studies on these public questions outlined in clause 22 are to be made public, we feel that there should be written into clause 23 not only that the reports be made public but that they may be made public within 15 days of the meeting of the House of Commons.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the argument advanced by the minister. He referred to the Borden commission report, paragraph 20, and I would point out that we are back at the difficulty we discussed last night. The Borden commission report merely provided that the board should have authority to do certain things; it was a permissive section. The scheme of clause 22 of the bill is, as to subclause 1, that it is mandatory on the board. The bill before us makes the board a court of record, and I thought the minister's argument was rather dangerous in that he was putting forward the proposition that the reports of a court of record were not to be made public. I think he really extended that argument much further than he intended. The extent of his argument, so that it could have any applicability at all, would be to reports under clause 22(2) and not under clause 22(1). It is a distinction upon which I would like a little more elaboration.


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


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is aware of the fact that I was discussing the advisory functions of the board, and that nothing I said had any relation to its operation as a court?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I am very well aware of that. I am talking about the advisory functions under clause 22, and the studies and reports under that clause.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not a court of record in that respect at all.


George James McIlraith: The very point I made last night was that it is a court of record here; and that is the way it will read-regrettably, in my opinion. This is the point I raised earlier, as I think the minister will agree, with regard to clause 10(1). The contention, then, is that the studies and reports of a court of record should not be made public. Surely that is going beyond what the minister intended to argue.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sure I did not say that. I certainly did not intend to do so.


George James McIlraith: The point I wish to make is this. We have charged this board with making these studies and reports. The parliament of Canada has given the board this responsibility. They are not in any shape or form confidential reports to the government, so this question does not arise with respect to them. Surely then, unless the minister has some other argument to address to this point, they should be made public as are any other documents prepared by a public board under its statutory authority.
It is one thing to argue that confidential reports obtained for the use of the government should be confidential, but that was not the point raised by the minister at all; and that point, if it were raised, could only be applicable to subclause 2 of clause 22. It seems to me the reports should be published in the same way as the reports of royal commissions, and that parliament should have a right to them as it has a right to any other public study. The minister has no discretion to decide whether or not parliament should have such documents, and I am curious to know why he wants to have a discretion of this kind with regard to the type of report we are considering.


Norman Platt Lambert: Might I answer a couple of the points which the hon. member for Ottawa West has made? I think the purport of clause 22, subclause 1 is that the reports are made to the minister and not to parliament. That is quite clear.
66968-9-264)
National Energy Board


Paul Joseph James Martin: All reports are. They must be.


Norman Platt Lambert: In this case they are not reports to parliament, they are reports to the minister. On this question of publicizing studies I suggest to members of this committee that there might well be very many areas in which the government might require the board to make certain studies of a confidential nature, and one does not have to go far back into history to find an instance of a similar body which had studies of this nature under its jurisdiction. If this body had been required to publish its reports as required by this amendment the area in which the government was moving would inevitably have been indicated. I feel that in the interests of security alone, to cite only one example, a mandatory requirement that all reports be published would be most unwise.
I suggest, further, that the board might make confidential inquiries from certain organizations, and that this amendment if accepted would immediately destroy this basis of confidence. Thus I believe that the amendment goes much too far and would involve us in a great deal of difficulty.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member
permit a question in order to clarify the latter part of his argument? Is he suggesting that the reports and studies which the board carries out of its own volition under subclause 1 are confidential? Is it not a fact that such confidential studies for the benefit or advice of the government as he has mentioned would only be undertaken under subclause 2, and that his argument about the reports being confidential would therefore only apply to reports made under subclause 2?


Norman Platt Lambert: I do not know why a distinction should be made. Certainly those reports made under subclause 2 should fall particularly into the class to which I referred. However, the board could conceivably of its own volition make certain studies the immediate publication of which as required by the present amendment would not be in the public interest.


George James McIlraith: What, then, is the purpose
of the studies and reports made under subclause 1 if it is not to inform parliament and to inform the public? If the arguments now being advanced are to be accepted, I respectfully suggest that there is none, and that subclause 1 of clause 22 ought never to have been included in the bill.


Norman Platt Lambert: I suggest that the hon. member might give consideration to one field of study, namely where certain information is gathered in relation to government policy.

National Energy Board


George James McIlraith: That is under subclause 2.


Norman Platt Lambert: It could also be under subclause 1. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate my meaning.


George James McIlraith: I have never heard it
argued before that reports of the kind dealt with in subclause 1 are confidential documents for the use of the government. I cannot recall any similar proposition being asserted. I agree there is an argument with respect to subclause 2 when the government requires certain information in order to formulate policy on certain subjects, but surely the type of study we are considering under subclause 1 is for the benefit of the public, in order to protect the public interest, and for the benefit and information of parliament. I am mystified why government supporters are applying a proposition which might be argued with reference to subsection 2 to the whole of the section.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. gentleman this. Suppose this board made intensive studies of atomic energy which is, of course, one of the great energy sources. Does the hon. member for Ottawa West suggest that all these studies should be made public?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Including the recommendations?


Mr, Mcllraith:: As a matter of fact I think those studies should be made public. I think the atomic energy control board is the body charged with dealing with security matters in the field of atomic energy. Under this bill the energy board is not given responsibility for security matters at all. I think if the minister would look at the legislation on atomic energy he would find that I am correct. This emphasizes an earlier criticism which we were making of this bill, namely that it involves unnecessary duplication. I do not intend, of course, to raise that whole subject now.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member suggest then, that this board should have no power whatever to study anything having to do with atomic energy which is the subject of security regulations?


George James McIlraith: I suggest that this legislation gives the board no power to do so.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: The hon. member for Ottawa West has asked whether there would be any likelihood of disclosing any information which by its nature should not be disclosed. He referred to subclause 1 and I will read, if I may, the opening paragraph:
The board shall study and keep under review matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction relating to the exploration for, production, recovery, manufacture-

And so on. I think we have a neat parallel in the conservation acts of two of our provinces. I am not too familiar with the act in Saskatchewan, but the Alberta conservation board makes reports similar to those here envisaged. It is a body of record and, at the same time, it has certain advisory functions. When the energy board receives, as it no doubt will, the co-operation of industry, much of the information that it will obtain from industry is certainly going to be of a confidential nature, industry having spent considerable money to develop the resources and reserves.
I suggest that one of the ways they will obtain that co-operation is on the assumption that information that is confidential is not going to be made public. I suggest that the parallel of the conservation boards of our two provinces is a good one. Of course they publish reports, but they are not going to publish confidential information of companies competing one with the other.


George James McIlraith: The confidential information would not be contained in the report. It would form part of the evidence on which the report is based. There is nothing here providing for the publication of the evidence.


Arthur Smith: I know, but I would have some concern about this, and I think the hon. member will appreciate what I am about to say. Without the discretionary power of the minister there is a risk that the information contained in the minutes, evidence or reports conceivably could become public, and the discretionary power vested in the minister would serve as a safety check.


George James McIlraith: Is the hon. member aware how that problem is handled by the tariff board at the present time? They deal with great volumes of confidential information all the time, and all their reports are made public immediately. They have no difficulty whatever on that score. It is an old problem concerning which there is a vast amount of experience. I think the tariff board is the best example I could use to answer the hon. member's argument. The statistical information the board gets from companies is confidential, yet it publishes all it reports.
There is another question I want to ask the hon. member. He made reference to certain parts of subclause 1. What importance does he attach to the words "as it considers necessary or advisable in the public interest" when dealing with the recommendations of the board? If the reports are to be reports of the board as to what it considers advisable in the public interest, surely it should not be discretionary on the part of the minister to decide whether or not the reports shall ever be made available

to the public. Surely that is not the position of the government on this point.
What is the point of setting up a board to report to us on what is necessary or advisable in the public interest if we cannot find out what is contained in the board's report? What is the board to be, a monument of futility? Is it to work and prepare its reports only to have them filed away? What is the purpose of expending this vast amount of money in setting up this kind of organization if we are not to know anything about what it is doing? How are we protected in that way?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke earlier I believe I incorrectly said or implied that the Borden commission had recommended that such reports as we are talking about should be made public. That was incorrect on my part and I want to make it clear.
In reply to what was said by the hon. member for Assiniboia, or as a result of his remarks, I wish to make it quite clear that what I was talking about was the advisory function of the board. I believe the hon. member for Assiniboia got off the subject and began discussing the functions of the board as a court, the public hearings the board would be holding to receive evidence, and so on. There is no intention at any time of having that type of work of the board not made public.
I believe the hon. member for Assiniboia was attempting to create the impression that some sort of concealment was being considered in this regard. The subject matter under discussion was the advisory function of the board and the type of report it would make from time to time to the minister. We have considered this fully, and though I have listened with interest to the suggestions made by hon. members opposite we feel we cannot accept the suggestions that have been proposed.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, in his argument on the amendment the minister referred to provincial jurisdiction and said the releasing of such reports might interfere with provincial jurisdiction. Subclause 1 of clause 22 clearly provides that the board shall study and keep under review matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction relating to the exploration for energy and sources of energy within Canada, etc. Would the minister suggest that such matters coming under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada should not be made public?


Harold Edward Winch: I want to follow up on the same argument. The wording of clause 22 is very clear, but what I cannot understand is
National Energy Board the apparent contradiction between the attitude expressed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few moments ago and that expressed by his parliamentary assistant.


Hazen Robert Argue: Which one?


Harold Edward Winch: The one who in the last 24 hours has been acting as parliamentary assistant and whispering a great deal into the ear of the minister, and who yesterday sat alongside him and who this afternoon sits behind him. It may be that the shadow is before the sunlight. Because this board is responsible to parliament and under this clause is charged with the responsibility of studying and keeping under review matters coming under the jurisdiction of parliament, why should not every report be made public? There are no considerations of national security as far as I can see.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he not think that the words "within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada" might mean within the jurisdiction of the federal government, as distinct from matters coming within the jurisdiction of the provincial government? That is the whole purpose of those words.


Harold Edward Winch: Why should not the parliament of Canada know all about it?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Chairman. When the committee rose this morning we had heard a number of arguments as to why this amendment should not pass. One of the strangest arguments that we heard was from the Minister of Public Works who said that if the board should undertake an inquiry into atomic energy it was something that would not be published or should not be published. I should like to criticize that statement on two grounds. First of all, I do not think it is the intention of this bill-and the minister can say whether or not this is correct-to have the board inquiring into the field of atomic energy and making reports about atomic energy. The second thing-and this is even more discouraging-is the attitude of the government that any inquiry into the field of atomic energy is something that should be kept a state secret. This is greatly overdone. The scientific

National Energy Board facts about atomic energy are not only available to Canada but to all of the countries of the world. This represents more a state of mind on the part of the government than anything based on any sound argument or any real fact.
Another argument that we have had advanced-this has already been dealt with a number of times; a completely fallacious argument-is that this has to be secret, or the provisions for keeping it secret must remain, because the board might be inquiring into something under provincial jurisdiction. This is a rather strange attitude for the government to take. First of all, I do not know why under clause 22 the board would be inquiring into things that are under provincial jurisdiction because it specifically states that:
The board shall study and keep under review matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction-
Why would the board be wandering into the fields of provincial jurisdiction? Then, there is the further qualifying phrase in the same subclause:
-as it considers necessary or advisable in the public interest-
Surely, these two provisions make it necessary that all of these reports should be made public. We are having a great deal of difficulty I would think, Mr. Chairman, in dealing with this measure because we are getting answers from so many people. The bill is in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This is what the bill says, but some of the questions are answered by the Minister of Public Works, some are answered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the advice of the Minister of Justice who was sitting with him part of the time this morning, and then we have a couple of candidates for parliamentary secretaryships, or potential parliamentary secretaries, competing one with the other and with the minister in the field of answering questions. I do not see why we should be getting replies from parliamentary secretaries who have not yet been appointed.


An hon. Member:: They have no right to answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: They cannot answer for the government; they can speak, but when we ask the minister a question and a would-be parliamentary secretary gets up and says "I will answer that", it is hardly a reply from the minister.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: We are talking about the energy bill and not about eventual nominations for the positions of parliamentary secretary. It would be appreciated if we came back to the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have been discussing the variety of replies, the confused replies and the great difference in those replies. One had atomic energy in the bill and another had atomic energy outside the bill. At one moment we have to be careful to keep those studies secret and hidden because the board may even be inquiring into matters under provincial jurisdiction and the next time we have, of course, the bill itself quoted, which says they have no business inquiring into things which come under the jurisdiction of the provinces because they are to inquire into things that have to do with the business over which parliament has control.
I am rather surprised, that a party that spent such a long time campaigning while in opposition about hidden reports, against secrecy, against the power to cover up matters which should be open to the public, is the very one that is taking these far-reaching powers to keep hidden from the public things which are, in my submission, of a public nature.
I would appeal to the government to give sympathetic consideration to the amendment which is before the committee. Surely on the basis of the limitations of clause 22, clause 23, the one now under discussion, should be amended in such a way as to require the minister to publish studies and reports which have been submitted to him by the board.


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


George James McIlraith: Just before the question is put, would the minister mind answering two questions? He made reference to matters of security under the atomic energy legislation. Will he agree that the atomic energy control board, by the legislation of this parliament, is made responsible for matters of security on that subject? Second, does this legislation give the energy board any responsibility for security matters on that subject?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is correct with regard to the security functions performed by the atomic energy control board, and under this legislation the energy board would be careful to observe any security that was required with regard to atomic energy.
I might say while I am speaking that the hon. member for Assiniboia is expressing some surprise. I in turn am surprised that he should be so critical of what has really been a fine display of co-operation on this side of the house. His party is so distraught

with disunity that perhaps he doesn't understand how a party can work together in co-operation, as has been done here.


Hazen Robert Argue: You mean they are all speaking with authority.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are speaking with an understanding of the subject matter under discussion which has perhaps escaped my hon. friend.


Hazen Robert Argue: I see you are speaking for your colleagues.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My hon. friend is trying to make out that there is some intent to conceal. That is not the case at all. This is just the normal precaution with regard to studies and reports which, as I mentioned before the lunch hour, might infringe upon confidential information supplied by or obtained from companies that are conducting business operations. There is no intention here to impose such strict limitations that nothing that the board studies will be made public. On the contrary, I imagine that most of what it deals with will be published in the interests of informing the Canadian public. This is a precautionary clause which has been introduced into the bill and we like it the way it is.


George James McIlraith: I do not think the test merely is that the minister likes it the way it is. In the first part of the remarks which the minister has just made I think he stated the position correctly with respect to atomic energy and really in effect destroyed the argument he made as to any reason for the minister not tabling these reports on the ground that they would invade the field of security as to atomic energy because the responsibility for security on that subject is and remains with the atomic energy control board.
The other argument he made before the noon adjournment about a possible invasion of the field of provincial jurisdiction has been disposed of because the only studies or reviews the board can make are limited by clause 22 to those matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction. Finally, he put forward an argument on the basis of confidential reports, but I point out that the reports referred to in subclause 1 of clause 22 are not confidential reports. They are recommendations that the board makes of its own volition and which it considers necessary or advisable in the public interest. I do not see that the minister has advanced an argument for rejection of the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Bourget) negatived: Yeas, 15; nays, 48.
National Energy Board


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the government has been unable to accept the amendment to clause 23 and its position in that regard has now been confirmed by a vote of the committee. The amendment would have dealt with all reports and studies under all parts of clause 22. But perhaps the government may be able to take a different attitude toward a different type of amendment. As I understand it, the minister said that the earlier amendment was undesirable because it might conceivably result in the publication of reports or studies which conflicted with provincial jurisdiction or might result in making public confidential information. Perhaps that difficulty, if it is one and we do not think it is much of a difficulty, could be removed if the amendment in respect to publication were restricted to clause 22, subclause 1, because, whatever may be the intent of subclause 2, there is no question that in subclause 1 studies and reports are only made by the board on matters within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. That is so stated in that subclause. Furthermore, there is no question of reports or studies being made under that subclause except on the initiative of the board itself, not on the request of the government. So by limiting the amendment to that subclause that particular difficulty should be removed.
As to the other alleged difficulty respecting confidential information, again that does not seem to me to apply to clause 22 (1). There is no question of confidential information being made public by reports initiated by the board any more than there is a question of such confidential information being made public by the reports initiated and made by the tariff board, all of which are made public. Therefore perhaps the government's difficulty in regard to altering this part in order to give publicity to those studies, which surely is desirable, might be removed through an amendment which I have much pleasure in moving as follows:
That clause 23 of the bill be amended by striking out the words "this part may" and substituting therefor the words "clause 22 (1) of this bill shall", and by striking out the words "with the approval of the minister."
Clause 23 would then read:
Studies and reports of the board made under clause 22 (1) of this bill shall be made public.


Norman Platt Lambert: What about those under clause 22 (2)?


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister not going to say something in answer to the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition?

National Energy Board


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tact that hon. members want information, which I am prepared to give at any time, but this appears to be simply a debate along similar lines to the one that was carried on before the lunch hour, and I think all the facts have been covered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Obviously the minister has not understood the amendment because the debate before the lunch hour and subsequent to the lunch hour, which has been concluded by the vote just taken, was a debate on a proposal to change clause 23 to make it obligatory for the government to publish all reports and studies under subclauses 1 and 2 of clause 22, not only reports made by the board on its own initiative but reports and studies made by the board at the request of the government.
The purpose of this new amendment is to remove the government's objections put forward to the effect that these reports might be of a confidential character or might be on a subject within provincial jurisdiction. Now that kind of objection cannot be taken to clause 23 as amended because it relates only to clause 22 (1) and in 22 (1) reports can only be instituted by the board on subjects within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. They could not be confidential in the sense that they could not be published, any more than the reports of the tariff board are confidential. Surely, the minister would have something to say on that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If my hon. friends want to debate the subject at length, I am quite prepared to do so. However, I understood that they were hoping to get along with reasonable speed, and they have been very cooperative. I have no reluctance whatever about entering into the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I quite appreciate the minister's position. Can he tell us what reasons he has for not accepting the amendment offered by the Leader of the Opposition which only refers to clause 22 (1). The minister is safeguarded on the matter he raised earlier because clause 22 (1) provides that the board shall report from time to time to the minister and shall recommend to the minister such measures within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada as it considers advisable in the public interest. This part still remains in 22 (1) and, in so far as the objections raised this morning by the minister are concerned, that safeguard is there. What I am asking the minister is, can he tell us what reasons he would have for not agreeing to this amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not accept the hon. member's conclusions that the arguments advanced this morning do not still apply to clause 22 (1). However, it seems to me there is a considerable difference between subclause (1) and subclause 2. Subclause 2 deals with formal studies and formal reports which would be documents presented to the minister for consideration. Subclause 1 suggests that the board shall study, but it does not say they will prepare long, documented studies. It says they shall study and keep under review certain matters and they shall report from time to time to the minister. This could be done by virtue of verbal reports such as one receives all the time from officials and from bodies such as this. Similarly, the board could recommend to the minister verbally that various measures should be considered.
Subclause 1 does not deal with the type of formal studies and reports that are mentioned in subclause 2. I think on that ground the argument of my hon. friend is extraordinarily weak, and the amendment would not achieve the objective that they have in mind in any case. This is the way I see the problem, and I do not see that there is any advantage in pressing this amendment. I do not see that it will assist in any way to improve the act. The board will be a competent board and the information that needs to be brought to the attention of the public in the national Interest certainly will be because that is the policy of this government. This is not a subject in which there is any concealed activity to be expected. The whole purpose is to advance the interests of Canada through the functioning of an energy board dealing with this immensely important subject of energy. We hope this advancement will take place through that medium.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister has not really made out a very strong case. It is true that the board, pursuant to the powers given to it under clause 22 (1), is not called upon to make written reports. Some of its reports, as the minister has indicated, may be oral. In that event, of course, the only way by which information could be given out would be by interrogation in this house, by voluntary statement in the house or outside by the minister.
But if the board is going to discharge its functions under clause 22 (1), namely study and keep under review matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, and make reports thereon, it is quite conceivable, as the minister admitted, that there would be reports which could be tabled in this house. There is the safeguard that they

are not to be tabled unless it is thought by the minister to be in the public interest to have them tabled.
The minister, as a lawyer, knows that what is said in these debates will not assist in any way those who have to interpret what this clause means after the bill has become law. The courts, in interpreting these clauses, are not permitted, under the rules of evidence and interpretation, to ascertain the meaning of a clause by observing what took place at the time the particular clause was adopted in the legislature. The good intentions of the minister, therefore, will not help future litigants or others concerned.
In any event while the minister himself may have the best of intentions and may intend that written reports shall be tabled provided they are not contrary to the public interest, he is not a unique creation of the Creator endowed with immortality, in terms of his person and in terms of his particular tenure. Next week he may become the minister of external affairs, for instance; I do not know. His successor is not likely to have the same good intentions that my hon. friend has. I suggest to him that while I appreciate, as one who has piloted measures through parliament, the reluctance of a minister to see his own special creation emasculated beyond the proportions that he, himself, had devised, I suggest to him that the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition, which really represents a compromise from the original amendment, is one to which the minister, in pursuing his present interest, ought to accede.
The minister would, I am sure, facilitate the passage of this and other clauses if he readily acknowledged that there is real merit in this suggestion, and accepted it in the spirit which I know animates him as he pursues this very heavy project.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister's argument that you can really trust us, or rather you can really trust me, has no real validity in application to this legislation. If, for the sake of argument, we can trust the government, they are not immortal as my hon. friend has pointed out. If we carry the argument to even more extreme lengths and assume a situation where they are not in office and my hon. friends on my extreme right are in charge of the government, and this legislation is on the statute books-


Hazen Robert Argue: We would make it public.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am carrying the argument to extreme lengths-we see where this argument might lead. If we had a C.C.F. government in power, we might never get reports at all.
66968-9-265
National Energy Board
Amendment (Mr. Pearson) negatived: Nays, 62; yeas, 20.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think as we are coming to the conclusion of part II, may we revert to clause 22, because I had a question to answer on that clause asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is the committee agreed that we revert to clause 22?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 22-Board to make continuing studies and reports.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The question which was asked me was with regard to possible duplication of effort, and I think reference was made to recommendation No. 18 of the Borden report. That recommendation reads as follows:
That such divisions or branches of the various departments of the government of Canada now concerned with oil and natural gas related matters and whose responsibilities would properly come within the jurisdiction of the national energy board be transferred to its jurisdiction.
The question concerned the number of divisions within government circles which would have some responsibility to these and related matters. It was considered rather difficult to express a transfer of these functions in legislative terms and that after the energy board was set up the departments which were concerned with studies similar to those to be conducted by the energy board would review their position and see whether or not their activities would be curtailed in any respect. I had a search made of the various departments of government and crown corporations that have some work going on related to that which will be undertaken by the energy board, and if the committee would like a list of them I am quite prepared to give it. They are arranged alphabetically.
First of all there is, as has been mentioned, the atomic energy control board. Then Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which does research and standards on domestic heating. The defence production department on its purchasing side has something to do with sources of energy. Then there is the dominion bureau of statistics, naturally. The external affairs department has a function to perform, or at least an interest in the licensing function of the national energy board, where international movement of energy and energy sources is concerned. The finance department naturally has an interest in the national energy board, but not in the research side of it. The

National Energy Board international joint commission, as was mentioned in the Borden commission report, will be doing work which will be of interest to the national energy board concerning the export of electricity. The mines and technical surveys department indicates considerable activity in fields which are related to those that the energy board will be surveying.
The national defence department is concerned only with regard to the question of fuels for their purposes. The national research council does quite a bit of work with regard to building research which has to do with heating appliances. Of course, the national revenue department exercises control with regard to imports and exports under its customs and excise division. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is active in research matters on energy and requirements through its economics division, water resources branch, and mining and lands division. The northern Canada power commission puts forward policies regarding production of power in northern Canada and the maritimes. The Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation might perhaps be considered as an interested party here. The tariff board would be interested in policy matters regarding import controls.
The Department of Trade and Commerce has its energy studies branch, a branch which has been largely responsible for the immense amount of work which had to be done prior to the introduction of this bill. The standards branch is interested in the export of electrical power and exports and imports of gas. The chemicals division of the commodities branch has an interest in petrochemicals and oil and gas; and of course the department generally in connection with external trade. The board of transport commissioners, as I mentioned in the earlier stages of the debate, will transfer its duties to the national energy board and be concerned only with instances where pipe lines cross railway lines. The Department of Transport will obviously have an interest in matters of transportation of energy and sources of energy when consulted by the national energy board.
Those are the areas in which there might be some duplication of effort, but chiefly I would think it would lie in the work now being done by the mines and technical surveys department and the northern affairs and national resources department. I think if any overlapping will occur, it will occur there. Experience will show to what extent some of that work might be continued under those departments, and what part of it might rather be performed by the national energy board and the information obtained by that board made available to these departments which are interested.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, the minister
has answered by giving a long list of departments and agencies which are concerned with energy and sources of energy. That shows there may be a duplication, as the minister has said, and I think we should try to avoid this.
The minister said before, I think in the debate on second reading, that it was not the intention of parliament to incorporate those agencies in this new organization, and we are all in favour of that. We want the board to operate separately and we want some other agencies to operate separately. The question is how much duplication there will be, how much expansive operation there will be due to the fact that this board is authorized to do research and investigation, and so on, on all matters concerning energy and sources of energy.
I think this should be clarified. For instance, how would the dominion coal board be related to the energy board? This we should know, because coal is a source of energy. We should also like to know how the international joint commission will be related to this new board, and how the atomic energy control board will be related to this new agency. What about the water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and any other departments which are concerned? I think this should be clarified, and for this reason I wish to propose an amendment to clause 22 subsection 1 which reads as follows:
That subsection 1 of clause 22 be amended by addition of the following words in line 20 after the words "sources of energy":
"for which the board has regulatory responsibility."


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate the hon.
member's interest in this matter and his desire, which coincides with our own, that there shall be no unnecessary duplication of duties and, as a result, added expenses. I am pleased that the hon. member introduced the word "regulatory", because there is a sharp distinction between the functions of the board in its regulatory and in its advisory duties. Here we are dealing with the board's advisory functions, and if this amendment were accepted those advisory functions would be restricted to areas in which the board has regulatory responsibility, that is, electricity, gas and oil.
Our conception of the advisory function of the board is much wider than that. We are hoping that the national energy board will keep under review all the sources of energy in this country and that its review would range over the entire field. This would not interfere with the work presently being done by the dominion coal board-we gave that

careful consideration-nor would it interfere with the work of the other bodies which have been mentioned. The energy board would, for example, draw upon the information available to the dominion coal board in order subsequently to advise the government and thence parliament as to the part coal would play in the over-all picture of the use of the energy resources of this country. Similarly, the entire field of energy would be subject to study and review by the energy board without interference with duties now being performed by the dominion coal board or Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the research council and so on. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite will agree that the information available from these bodies should be studied by the national energy board which would consolidate that information, review it and, on that basis, make recommendations and give advice.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can appreciate the point which the minister is making, but inevitably the information which he has just given us does show the variety of government agencies engaged in these fields of energy and underlines, surely, the danger of duplication and overlapping with resultant confusion and, perhaps, unnecessary duplication and expense. The minister is no doubt aware of the operation of Parkinson's law as applied to government procedure and there is the danger-and it is a human danger-that the new energy board when set up will be subject to the temptation to carry on its investigations and researches into every field of energy, because that is what it is authorized to do by clause 22(1). There is no limitation on its activities. The men responsible for this board will be men of ability and initiative, and they will naturally wish to extend their researches into all fields of energy. That, surely, involves the danger of duplication, because there are boards which have been operating in this field for a long time, charged with duties which they have been carrying out effectively.
We have been concerned about this danger as, no doubt, has the minister himself, and if the amendment which we have suggested is not considered suitable for the purpose I wonder what steps the government visualizes as being suitable? Will the energy board be given supervisory control over all researches in this field or is there to be an intergovernmental committee which will include representatives from all the main bodies to ensure that duplication of effort and expense will not take place.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is a restrictive amendment. What the official opposition is endeavouring to do is to restrict the powers of the board, even its advisory powers, its ability to make 66968-9-2651
National Energy Board inquiries. The opposition wishes to restrict the board even in this respect to the very narrow field over which it has regulatory responsibility. What they are really trying to do is to prevent the board from obtaining the knowledge of the broad field of energy in this country which is essential to the making of intelligent decisions on the particular types of energy over which the board has regulatory responsibility. I may be wrong, but I can imagine a great development of atomic energy in this country-atomic energy becoming economic and more widespread in use-and the board then having to decide whether or not a great many gas and oil pipe lines should be built across this country.


George James McIlraith: In such an eventuality is this situation not taken care of by subclause 2 of clause 22?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think that clause says that the minister shall make these requests.


An hon. Member:: It would be for the
minister.


Hazen Robert Argue: All of a sudden the members of the official opposition have great faith in the minister. For a while this morning they were very cautious about him and careful that his jurisdiction should be well defined. They did not want him to have hidden reports. Now they say he has enough power; that the power he has under paragraph 2 is such they would like him to restrict the powers of the board and weaken the knowledge it has with regard to energy matters other than those over which it has regulatory responsibility, making the board dependent upon the minister making a decision under subclause 2. I think that the opposition in advancing this argument have advanced it because they wish to advance a great many amendments. At a previous stage of this debate, to which I may refer only briefly, they were most uncomfortable. They voted for the bill. They got into bed with the government, but then the government embarrassed them by calling a vote on second reading and putting them on record. Now they want to retreat from this very inept decision which they made by trying to show how different they are from the government over matters of detail. In their enthusiasm to show their difference they are really endeavouring to restrict the knowledge of the board and therefore its effectiveness. We in this group have consistently advocated those things that we feel would enable the board to do a comprehensive job, to have adequate powers and not be interfered with or dictated to by the minister. We therefore feel that this restrictive amendment should not be supported.

National Energy Board


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, we do not feel at all uncomfortable about this and the other amendments. Unlike my hon. friends to my immediate right we are not content to make wild, general and vitriolic statements on second reading designed to attract the attention of the press. Second reading is over and we are now dealing with the provisions of the bill. As an opposition should, we have studied these provisions and are providing amendments designed to make the bill a better one.


Hazen Robert Argue: Others have read it for you, you mean.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Procedure of this kind may not get into the headlines or attract the attention that these large and histrionic speeches do on second reading-


Hazen Robert Argue: Excellent headlines.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -but the course we are following is a constructive approach to the consideration of legislation. I hope the hon. member for Assiniboia will offer his helpful support to those provisions which he feels he could support and I trust he will vote against those which after careful study he feels he cannot support.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is exactly what I have been doing. I will vote against it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: After these introductory remarks I may say I do not think the point made by my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia is very well taken because the amendment in question would prevent the duplication of investigatory work. That is all we are seeking to do. If the investigatory work of the board as this amendment suggests is restricted to the functions given to the board by regulation we may be certain that the investigatory work of other boards will be similarly restricted and will result in a saving of unnecessary investigatory work. Therefore, without placing a restriction on the work of this board or any other energy agency, through the acceptance of this motion we will help prevent the duplication that sometimes makes for inefficiency and always makes for expense.
(Translation):


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), is talking nonsense. What we want is to safeguard the standing of existing agencies.
I think the dominion coal board will feel encroached upon, and a loss of prestige, if this new board is allowed to consider all

problems relating to coal. So would all other agencies, and that is what we want to avoid.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says we did not bring this up on second reading. If the hon. member will go over the speech I made then, he will find that a substantial part of my remarks dealt with this matter, and he should take due note of this fact.
That, sir, is our reason for moving this amendment, to maintain the prestige of agencies which have to continue their work. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) did say that they would continue to work as in the past, and we concur in the government's views in this respect.
(Text):


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Dumas) negatived: Yeas, 15; nays, 65.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 25-Who may construct or operate pipe lines.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I often regret the inability of my untutored layman's mind -I am not even a law student-to follow the complexities and subtleties of legal language, but there is something in this clause I do not understand and no doubt the minister will be able to explain it to me. Clause 25 (1) reads as follows:
No person, other than a company, shall construct or operate a pipe line.
In the definitions outlined in clause 2 of the bill, subclause (c) reads:
"company" means a person-
I wonder if the minister will explain that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate my hon.
friend's grave difficulties. I recall some of the struggles I went through such as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is now enduring. In reading the interpretation clause you must not stop at the word "company". The full sentence reads:
"company" means a person having authority under a special act to construct or operate pipe lines.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At first when
my leader was raising this point I thought he was going to make a slur on the minister's profession and mine but he carefully avoided any suggestion along that line and asked a perfectly proper question, how we should reconcile the words "any person" in clause 25 (1) to the definition in clause 2 (c).

I should like to ask another question on clause 25 (1). The clause says that no person other than a company shall construct or operate a pipe line. Does that mean that no one can hope to obtain a licence to construct such a project unless it is an incorporated company? Does that mean that an individual could not undertake such a project if he wanted?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No person unless he has
authority under a special act to construct or operate a pipe line; "unless" is stressed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I see, thank you.


George James McIlraith: I have a suggestion to
make at this point. It seems to me that the next 25 clauses are lifted almost entirely from the Pipe Lines Act. It would make for better order in considering these clauses if when they are called the minister would indicate which clauses are taken from the Pipe Lines Act, which are taken from that act but partially changed and which are new.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will try to do that.
Clause 25 (1) is modelled on the first part of section 10 (a) of the Pipe Lines Act as amended. I might go on to say that subclause 2 of clause 25 is based on the latter part of section 10 (a) of the act as amended. Subclause 3 of clause 25 is section 2 subsection 4 of the Pipe Lines Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 26-Operation of pipe line.
George James McIlraith: Perhaps the minister would give an explanation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 26 has no counterpart in the Pipe Lines Act. It complements clause 25 (1) above dealing with the operation of a pipe line.


George James McIlraith: There is something here that I wanted to have clarified a bit. It arises out of our discussion yesterday of this bill in the committee stage. It becomes clear that certain very large interprovincial and international pipe lines are, by the legislation now before the committee, being released from any regulatory control; that is, a class of pipe line of the nature of the one incorporated by special act earlier this year, namely Foothills Pipe Lines Limited, which under the former legislation would be required to come before the board of transport commissioners in order to get leave to construct its line, with all the protection to the public that that might imply. But under the new legislation such a company, if it carries out the purposes expressed in debate by its proponents, rather than merely the things it is authorized to do
National Energy Board under its act of incorporation, will not be required to apply to the board for a hearing and a certificate before it constructs its line.
I want a little clarification because I am not too clear in my understanding of that point. I want to point out the implications of that to the committee. When one reads the debates when that special act was before the other place it becomes clear that it envisages construction of a very large pipe line over an international border. Indeed, it may very well be that when they come to that stage it will be a duplicate pipe line, having separated-I am not too familiar with the technical terms-a particular form of gas produced in the area into two forms, and that there will in fact be duplicate lines side by side to take the products off in separate forms. One will come under the regulatory provisions of the act and the other will be excluded from the provision of the act. Will the minister clarify that a bit for me.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend was incorrect in his statement that the line to which he was referring, which carries sulphur, is not now regulated by the present oil and gas Pipe Lines Act, which regulates company pipe lines transporting oil and gas, and does not regulate a pipe line such as the one to which he refers. The present bill similarly is not taking under regulation that particular pipe line.. Subsequently in the legislation we will suggest to the committee an amendment which would give that and similar pipe lines not transporting hydrocarbons certain other rights that are in this legislation with regard, for example, to the expropriation 'of lands.


George James McIlraith: I want to point out that the definition of oil and gas in the old legislation -I will not rehash this discussion- was considerably wider and it may well be that the Pipe Lines Act would have covered the particular pipe line I have reference to. In any event, there is another control over that under the legislation being repealed. If they are not now under the oil and gas legislation, then they come under the provisions of the exportation of power and fluids act, that other legislation which is being repealed.
Just before this clause carries there is one other question I wish to raise. As I read this now it exempts companies which are not incorporated by special act, and which do not come under the definition of company in this bill and which are now operating pipe lines, from requiring a certificate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is intended to carry forward section 10 (a) which is section 2 of

National Energy Board the present Pipe Lines Act. The amendment was made in 1953 and that amendment said:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or prevent any person from operating or improving an extra-provincial pipe line constructed before the 1st day of October, 1953.


George James McIlraith: I think the point is a little different.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That referred largely to the line running from Montreal to Portland.


George James McIlraith: I think the point is a little different. There are some companies that are not companies within the meaning of this legislation operating pipe lines. There is a distinction between the former legislation and this legislation in its implications for such companies.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has the hon. member any definite companies in mind that he could name? We do not recall any at the moment.


George James McIlraith: I have definite companies in mind; yes, but I prefer not to name them.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 27-Approval of board.
Armand Dumas: I have a point that I wish to have clarified in view of the fact that plan, profile and book of reference are mentioned in this clause. I think this is an exact copy of the Pipe Lines Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Section 11, yes.


Armand Dumas: But it is much different from the Railway Act. Section 170, subsections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mention plans and profiles. They do not mention any book of reference. In the province of Quebec plans and the book of reference can only be certified by the minister of lands and forests. They cannot be certified by the secretary of any board; they have to be certified by the proper provincial authority. I doubt whether this is legal because section 171 of the Railway Act, subsection 7 reads:
In the province of Quebec the portion of the railway comprised in each municipality shall be indicated on the plan, and in the book of reference, by separate number or numbers.
This could be added to clause 29 but I do not know whether it should not be added to clause 27, in view of the fact that the book of reference is mentioned there, because the book of reference cannot be certified by the secretary of the board; it has to be certified by the provincial authority.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would be quite content to stand this clause to consider the point brought up by my hon. friend.


Armand Dumas: When we come to clause 29 it might stand also. I will not press the question but I should like the minister to stand clauses 27 and 29. Maybe his legal advisers can throw some light on the matter.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. MacEwan):: Does the committee agree to stand clauses 27 and 29?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 27 and 29 stand.
On clause 28-Application for certificates; material to be filed.


George James McIlraith: Is this from the Pipe Lines Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Pipe Lines Act, section 12, subsections 1 and 2.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 30-Effect of approval.
George James McIlraith: Is this from the Pipe Lines Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 30 is section 14 of the Pipe Lines Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 31-Time for acquiring lands.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 31 is section 15 of the Pipe Lines Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 35 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 36-Approval of deviations.
Armand Dumas: Is clause 36 the same as section 20 of the Pipe Lines Act or is there any difference?


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I indicate here that sections 13 to 19 inclusive of the Pipe Lines Act refer to those clauses up to and including 35. Any that I did not mention as we went along are derived from sections 13 to 19 of the Pipe Lines Act. With respect to clause 36, subclauses 1 and 2 are the same as subsections 1 and 2 of section 20 of the Pipe Lines Act. Subclause 3 differs from subsection 3 of section 20 of the Pipe Lines Act to a certain extent. I have an amendment to be proposed in connection with clause 36.


Howard Charles Green: I move:
That subclause (3) of clause 36 be amended by striking out the words "lessening a curve, reducing a radiant, or otherwise" in line 38 on page 12.


Gordon Minto Churchill: By way of explanation I might say that the words it is now proposed to strike out were carried forward from the Railway Act into the present Pipe Lines Act. We have received representations from within

the pipe line industry that these words are not usefully applicable to pipe line construction and that is why we have suggested that they be dropped.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The important thing is change or alteration.


George James McIlraith: There is another point here. I have not the exact reference to the Pipe Lines Act but I understand that there was a limitation on the amount of deviation there could be without filing new plans. That limitation, which was 300 yards, has been taken out altogether. Would the minister explain why that was done?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Subclause 3 of clause 36 differs from subsection 3 of section 20 of the Pipe Lines Act in that the extent to which a pipe line may deviate from its planned course and still be allowed exemption from the provisions of this section is now discretionary with the board and is no longer a fixed figure of 300 yards. In the past such definite limitations have proved embarrassing when the need to skirt large and unforeseen obstacles has arisen requiring in some cases a deviation of only a few yards more than the maximum limit, and in view of the short construction season in Canada it has been felt that everything possible should be done to avoid unnecessary procedural delays during the actual building of a line. That accounts for the slight change from the older act.


George James McIlraith: I point out to the minister that he has put no limitation whatever on it. I can understand the necessity of raising the 300 yard limit but does he not think there should be a limit of some kind? Was any consideration given to that point?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The board, you see, determines the route in the first instance and we thought it would be best left to the board to make that decision rather than to write a limit into the act because experience has shown that when a definite limit is written into the act some difficulty arises.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 37-Board may order diversions.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Is this from the Pipe Lines Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Section 33 of the Pipe Lines Act, and no change.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 38-Leave to open line.
Armand Dumas: Are there any changes?
National Energy Board


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 38, subclause 1, is identical with section 34 of the Pipe Lines Act. Subclause 2, grant of leave, has no counterpart in the Pipe Lines Act. It gives authority to the board to grant leave to operate and this clause is designed to ensure that all lines are inspected in the interests of public safety before they are opened. That inspection can be carried out in several ways, by personnel from the board, by private engineers who might submit affidavits of inspection to the board, or on the basis of evidence derived from the company that satisfactory tests and inspections have been made. We are leaving it to the board to determine how that evidence shall be obtained.


George James McIlraith: There is another point involved. The minister will recall our discussion last night on another clause regarding the use of the term "transportation" as applied to the moving of oil through a pipe line. I will not repeat the discussion that took place on the earlier clause, but he will note that this clause merely uses the word "transmission". Has he considered whether or not the word "transportation" should be added here in the light of the discussion last evening on the other clause?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Consideration was given to this matter after the discussion yesterday and we reached the conclusion that the verb "transmit" and the noun "transmission" might be better than "transport" or "transportation" in instances in the act other than where we first inserted the word "transportation", which was with regard to the definition of a toll. There it was an all-inclusive definition, but elsewhere in the bill such as here the words "transmit" and "transmission" would have their ordinary meaning and include everything that is embraced by "transport" or "transportation". It seemed that perhaps it would be unnecessary to use two expressions throughout the bill when one conveys the meaning that is intended.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 39-Safety.
George James McIlraith: What is the explanation of this?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 39 is taken from section 35 of the Pipe Lines Act, except that the regulations referred to must now be approved by the governor in council. My statement applies to subclauses (1) and (2), but subclause (3) is not from the Pipe Lines Act. This is the paragraph that provides for penalties.


George James McIlraith: I did not catch the explanation for subclause (3)?

National Energy Board


Gordon Minto Churchill: Subclause (3) does not come from the Pipe Lines Act, and was introduced here to indicate the penalties for violation of the regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 40-Leave to construct power lines.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: This clause has to do with the issuance of a certificate before proceeding with construction of power lines. I understand that it follows the main lines of the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act, section 6, subsection (30). This seems to be different in that under the exportation of power act a permit is required, whereas under this bill a certificate is required. Can the minister explain why there is that change?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is correct; in the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act there was a licence requirement. This is now changed to a certificate of public convenience and necessity which makes this provision parallel with other provisions in the bill dealing with gas and pipe lines.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In order to clarify this
clause, may I give an illustration? The New Brunswick Electric Power Commission is exporting power to the state of Maine at certain periods of the year. Will they come under this clause of the bill?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 96 of the bill should be looked at for an explanation of this clause. Clause 96 states that every person who, on the day this act comes into force, is operating an international power line, is entitled to a certificate. This certificate would be issued and would take the place of the licence now in existence.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I shall want more information about this when we come to clause 96.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 41-Material to be filed.
George James McIlraith: Clause 41, I take it, is putting into the bill what was in the regulations under the act being repealed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, and these clauses are running parallel to the earlier sections, 27, 28, 29 and 35 of the present bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 42-Regulations.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I understand that this is an entirely new clause which was not covered under the old exportation of power act. Can the minister explain the purpose of this clause?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is again running parallel with the sections which provide for oil and

gas pipe lines and gives the board power to make regulations. It may differ in minor detail from the ones that would apply to pipe lines.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How can the
governor in council or the board in any way give power with regard to the registration of property or the duties of the registrar of deeds, when these matters are within the competence of provincial authorities?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The way it reads, starting in clause 35 and continuing, these phrases are the headings that you will find earlier in the bill and they are just repeated here, the registration of plans, profiles, books of reference, and so on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That may be, and my hon. friend probably has a very good explanation, but how can my hon. friend define what are the duties of the registrar of deeds, and so on, with respect to these plans and profiles? Surely only the provincial legislature can set out the duties of the registrar of deeds?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This was provided for in clause 34 with respect to oil and gas, and here we are simply making provision to do the same thing for electricity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I know, and I am not quarrelling with that. I just want to understand the section because it seems to me that any duties that the registrar might have could only come from the authority that is concerned with property and civil rights under the B.N.A. Act, that is the provincial authority.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister explain how this parliament or the board, with the approval of the governor in council, can make regulations with respect to the duties of the registrar of deeds who is a provincial official and comes under provincial jurisdiction?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This was drawn originally-


Mr. Brooks:: I believe that this clause means that the registrar of deeds would receive instructions as to the way in which the plans would be filed or the way the details would be recorded in the book of the registry office. The board would give instructions as to the manner in which the details were filed. I think that is continually done in the provincial offices of the registrar.


George James McIlraith: It is probably a technical objection, but this parliament seems to be seeking to interfere with the duties of a provincial official.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think because of the reference to international power lines this gives the dominion some interest in the matter.


George James McIlraith: It gives them an interest, undoubtedly, and gives them the right to regulate international power lines, but not to make regulations as to the duties of the registrar of deeds. There is unfortunate wording here, but I take it the clause is taken from previous legislation that has been in use.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
On clause 44-Issue of certificates.
Hazen Robert Argue: Clause 44 sets out under what conditions, and for what reasons, the board may, subject to the approval of the governor in council, issue a certificate in respect of a pipe line or an international power line. The board will have regard to the following: The availability of oil or gas; the existence of markets; the economic feasibility; the financial responsibility and financial structure of the applicant, and the public interest that, in the board's opinion, may be affected by the granting or the refusing of the application.
I should like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there should be one further condition placed in this clause which would provide for control by Canadians of the companies to which certificates may be issued. This is a proposal that, in the past, has been very dear to the hearts of hon. members opposite, namely that in the construction of gas pipe lines in particular these companies involved should be Canadian companies and should be controlled in this country.
It should almost be unnecessary to set forth the reasons why it is preferable to have a Canadian company. We see to a growing and alarming extent the further alienation of Canadian resources to outside interests and capital. The government has said in this legislation that it welcomes both foreign and Canadian capital; but even if that is the position which the government takes, I think that the interests of companies erecting pipe lines should be Canadian.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the following amendment:
That clause 44 be amended by adding the following:
"Provided that no certificate shall be issued to an applicant of which less than 51 per cent of the common stock is owned by residents of Canada or by companies deemed by the board to be controlled in Canada."
We remember a previous debate, a particular pipe line debate, in which the position of the government party, which at that time was in opposition, was that the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company should be Canadian-controlled. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, because we are interested in having the
National Energy Board greatest amount of control by Canadians of Canadian industries and natural resources, we feel that this amendment should commend itself to the house. We have before us the report of the royal commission on energy. It shows to what a very large extent the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company is controlled by outside interests. Surely hon. members opposite would agree that this company is an example of the type of company which has the type of control against which we should guard. This provision does not, of course, imply public ownership; it merely states that in the development by private companies of oil and gas pipe lines certificates shall be issued only to companies wherein 51 per cent of the common stock is owned by residents of Canada, or by companies deemed by the board to be controlled in Canada. This would remove Canadian pipe line companies from control by Texas buccaneers or other kinds of buccaneers outside this country. We hope, Mr. Chairman, that the government will give sympathetic consideration to this amendment.


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


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee is entitled to a reply from the minister as to the attitude of the government on this proposition and whether the government thinks it is reasonable or not. Perhaps it likes the general idea. It might wish a different percentage of the common stock in the amendment or might wish it changed in some minor way. But I do feel that the minister owes it to the committee to state the position of the government on this proposition, which they have advocated many times in the past.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hesitated to intervene at this stage just as I did at an earlier stage this afternoon when my hon. friend was having a spirited exchange with the Leader of the Opposition, and I anticipated my intervention might start it again. However, I have no reluctance to answer the hon. gentleman. We have introduced into this legislation something entirely new, to be found in subclause (d) of clause 44, which reads as follows:
-the financial responsibility and financial structure of the applicant, the methods of financing the line and the extent to which Canadians will have an opportunity of participating in the financing, engineering and construction of the line;-
That latter phrase is new in legislation. The board is instructed by this clause to take full account of those matters, and particularly the opportunity for Canadians to participate. We thought that that was reasonable under the circumstances and that the board,

National Energy Board with this guidance and its public hearings, would certainly be able to discover to what extent Canadians were given an opportunity to participate. Our conclusion was that with that written into the act it would not be necessary to state any specific percentage of stock that should be owned by Canadians. Rather let us wait for some experience in the operation of the board and then we will be guided. I am not suggesting that I have any further action in mind at all. I am simply suggesting that experience is helpful in all these matters, and we have gone a long way here in publicly declaring the policy of the government-and I hope it will receive the approval of parliament-that Canadians will have an opportunity of participating in these operations.
As I say, that is new. It is different from what has prevailed in the past and should provide the opportunities that we all hope there will be for Canadians.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, my reply to that would be this, that the committee should be entitled to a more definite indication of what the government's policy is as set forth in this clause. I asked that very simple question because of the fact that according to the first line of the clause the board may do certain things subject to the approval of the governor in council. It would seem to me that since the authority of the governor in council is required for the issuance of a certificate in respect of a pipe line or an international power line, the governor in council now must have some idea of what it means by subclause (d) to which the minister has referred, namely:
-the financial responsibility and financial structure of the applicant, the methods of financing the line and the extent to which Canadians will have an opportunity of participating in the financing, engineering and construction of the line;-
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that as this clause now stands it is very nebulous, and indefinite. It is the kind of legislation that we find this government presenting to parliament more and more frequently. It is legislation that can mean all things to all people. I can imagine some American coming to see the government and asking what subclause (d) means, the extent to which Canadians will have an opportunity. He might easily get the answer, "Well, of course, there have been long debates about this in the past and it reads nicely for some people but we are not going to be very difficult about the extent; we are not really too concerned whether or not Canadians have the chance to obtain a very large proportion of the control of such a company." This is completely indefinite, as I say. The extent might be zero.


There is no guarantee that it means anything more than zero, because there is no definition whatsoever.
One does not even find such a word as "substantially". Merely "the extent to which". And then it goes on: "the extent to which Canadians would have the opportunity of participating in the financing, engineering and construction of the line." Nothing is said about control. Nothing is said about what proportion of the voting stock should be in the hands of Canadians. This very general and inexact clause really does not tie the government to any policy at all. It is so general that it may not carry out even the hint which is provided that Canadians may have some opportunity to participate in the financing, engineering and construction of lines.
As it now reads this is a most unsatisfactory clause. It does nothing to carry out policies which members of the Conservative party advocated when in opposition, because even without this clause Canadians could probably have some opportunity to participate in the financing, engineering and construction of many of these projects. The governor in council, with the requirement that their approval must be obtained before a certificate is issued under this nebulous clause, could completely overlook the need for Canadian participation in financing, construction and engineering, to say nothing about the control of the company involved.
This is the type of loose amendment that we see so often from this government. It is most inexact; it means all things to all people, and the Canadian citizen, reading it, will have no idea what is behind the government's move to include it in this bill. I think we require something more from the minister by way of a definite statement. I should like him to comment on what the objective of the government would be as to Canadian participation in the financing, engineering and construction of pipe lines. Surely the minister owes it to the committee to say whether or not the government feels that Canadians should play a substantial part in the financing of these projects. "Substantial" is a generous word, but it means something more than zero. To what extent will there be Canadian participation in the construction of the line and so on?
Amendment (Mr. Argue) negatived: Yeas, 3; nays, 65.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 44 carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This clause is, of course, one of the most important in the bill. There were certain observations made about this

portion of the bill during second reading which seemed to convey a wrong impression of what the clause could or could not do. It was argued by the Prime Minister when he was discussing the powers of the board that this clause ensured that there would be just and reasonable tolls, a matter of great importance. The Prime Minister also argued that this particular clause ensured that profits could not by any stretch of imagination be promoted which would be exorbitant or which would be extraordinarily high. Those were the words he used.
In fact, the clause makes no such provision. I cannot go as far as the hon. member for Assiniboia in arguing that there should be unreasonably restrictive provisions in a clause of this kind, for instance in respect of stock ownership by Canadian nationals. Our position on that matter has been consistent over the years and while we would naturally support any reasonable move which would assure for Canadians a maximum of control over Canadian activities, there are provisions in legislation which would be unnecessarily and unwisely restrictive and which would prevent the very kind of Canadian national development which they might purport to encourage. Nevertheless, while that kind of provision does not seem to us to be wise, to give the impression that this particular clause is an assurance that the board will take certain action and be able to prevent extraordinarily high profits being made or high tolls being charged is not justified by the language of the clause, because as I read it it is purely permissive in character. The words are: the board may do certain things. It is provided that the board shall take into account all such matters as to it appear to be relevant. And without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the board may have regard to various criteria which are set out, and which it may take into account in issuing a certificate in respect of a pipe line.
All this clause does, and we might as well be perfectly clear about it, is to advise the board that there are certain criteria which the legislation specifies which may be taken into consideration. A few moments ago the minister mentioned some of them- financial responsibility and the financial structure of the applicant, the method of financing the line and the extent to which Canadians will have an opportunity to participate in the financing, engineering and construction of the line. There is nothing in this clause which could possibly be interpreted by the board as an instruction to do anything. It is purely permissive in character, and while these may be very useful and a valuable criteria-criteria which the board,
National Energy Board no doubt, may take into consideration-it is quite wrong to give the impression as the Prime Minister did the other day that this particular clause will ensure that tolls will not be exorbitantly high or that profits will not be extraordinarily great. I thought I would bring this matter to the consideration of the committee so that there would be no misunderstanding as to the exact meaning of this particular clause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We were just asking ourselves what was the exact meaning of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. It seemed to us he was getting forward into the other clauses which deal with tolls and tariffs. Here we are simply dealing with the issue of certificates and the considerations that are to be taken into account at the time the issue of a certificate is being considered by the board. Here we have set out the criteria that are necessary for the board to examine. I note that in looking back at the Prime Minister's speech on Tuesday, May 26 he commented upon this and listed the essential elements that appear in clause 44. We feel that this has no relationship to some of the matters to which the Leader of the Opposition has been referring. It is the issue of the certificate after the board has satisfied itself that the company making application is in a position to perform the functions that it considers it is able to do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce have special reference to the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition. On a strict technical interpretation, part of what my hon. friend has said would have validity but the Leader of the Opposition, of course, was using clause 44 to make a general observation. If he had confined his remarks only to tolls, of course, he would have waited until he had reached part 4 with clauses 50 and following clauses, but he was just making a general observation prompted by the statement made by the Prime Minister as reported at page 4022 of Hansard of May 26 in which among other things the Prime Minister said:
That is one of the most important considerations, the determination of just and reasonable tolls, not tolls that by any stretch of the imagination could permit of exorbitant or extraordinarily great profits without risk being attached-
There is nothing in this particular clause or in any clause of the bill that warrants that statement. That is the gist of what the Leader of the Opposition was saying. He was recalling to hon. gentlemen opposite their observations made on another occasion. We have been looking for an opportunity of ascertaining whether in any clause of this bill there was

National Energy Board any provision that would prevent what hon. gentlemen have so frequently referred to on other occasions. This is the opportunity for them to implement these statements and allegations of another day.
We were told not long ago about the fact that this country economically was gradually, bit by bit, being dominated by another country, that strong steps had to be taken to protect Canadian interests vis-a-vis the invasions of even the friendliest country and in this bill, and certainly in this clause, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, there is no provision that would avoid exorbitant profits and no provision that would prevent any dominant group from any outside jurisdiction coming in and taking control of the situation provided for under clause 44 of this bill.
What the Leader of the Opposition has said was very relevant. What was said by the minister a few moments ago and earlier in the discussion of this bill and particularly on this clause has served to confirm the position that we in this party have taken with regard to foreign participation. The objective of all Canadians, of course, is to see to it that Canadians participate to the full, but in this stage of the development of our country we have not felt it was possible by regulation to take a firm stand in that particular. That was an honest position to take.
What was the position hon. gentlemen opposite took? This country was being dominated by the United States by way of the inflow of capital, by way of management of corporations, and the like. In this very clause the government would have had the opportunity of taking the step that would reveal that once in office the government was prepared to act consistently with these declarations on other occasions. While there is no fundamental issue taken with this clause it does afford us the opportunity of saying to hon. gentlemen opposite, including my hon. friend the genial Minister of Public Works who I think was among those who took strongest issue, that nothing is now being done by the government consistent with the position it took before and particularly during the election with regard to the domination of this country by those who supply capital by way of investment from the United States in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Of course you are completely wrong.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, the best kind of argument my hon. friend is capable of making when he is in a difficult position is saying I am wrong.


Howard Charles Green: You are always wrong.


Murdo William Martin: That is an assertion that simply adorns the fact that my hon. friend is in a very weak position. The fact is that this government made much of the fact that there was foreign capital in this country and of the domination by the United States of so many corporate structures in Canada, but when the government is given the opportunity in the legislation it formulates it does not do anything about it.
The government sat motionless the other day when there was a big announcement of the decision of the United States Ford Motor Company to take control by way of stock participation in the Canadian Ford Motor Company. Not one word was said at that time but there were these great words uttered from one end of Canada to the other during the election. This expression of new Canadianism is now received by this lethargic government with respectful silence, and when I refer to the government I include the Minister of Public Works.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, we have just listened to the greatest exhibition of oratorical fence-sitting we have heard for a long time. We have heard the hon. member for Essex East saying that the government is in a weak position. There is no one in this committee in a weaker position on this question than the Liberal party so far as I can see.


Murdo William Martin: We are consistent.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Essex East and the Leader of the Opposition got up and made speeches which, if they lived up to what they said, would indicate that they would have voted for our amendment.


Murdo William Martin: We believe in logic. We are consistent.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Essex East and I have a different understanding of the word "consistent". I cannot understand hon. gentlemen rising in their seats and in effect leaving the impression with the committee that they have always been as opposed to United States domination of capital in oil and gas pipe lines and other energy resources as this group has and at the same time saying they have no fundamental issue with the clause in question and accusing the government of the very thing of which they themselves are guilty.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, it is not very difficult to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West who is undoubtedly upset because a particular method put forward by those in that group for meeting this problem has not been found acceptable to those in this party. It is one thing

to complain about the action of the government in these matters in the past and about the weakness of a particular provision but it is something else to introduce a provision which is quite unrealistic, unworkable and which would not accomplish the purpose which even those hon. gentlemen have in mind.
To put in legislation that an applicant must have a certain percentage of the stock held in Canadian hands and to make no provision for any change in stock ownership after that provision has been fulfilled makes no sense at all. You might have 51 per cent of the stock in Canadian hands at the time of the application and a week later only 10 per cent. For the C.C.F. to suggest that this particular problem is solved by this kind of amendment shows how unrealistic they are when it comes down to practical matters.
And now, Mr. Chairman, to turn to important matters, this particular provision does not deal with the question that my hon. friend has dealt with, and which has so often been in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, especially when they were over here: what can be done to ensure maximum Canadian control of Canadian companies?
I quite appreciate the minister's point that in mentioning tolls in particular I was anticipating perhaps another clause of the bill. But the fact remains that this is the clause in the bill which was put forward by the Prime Minister and others as a clause which would ensure that there should be no unwarranted, exorbitant profits. These are not the exact words he used but I think it is a fair interpretation of what he said. There is nothing in this clause which would necessarily bring about that result at all. All it says is that the board may have regard to the following in issuing a licence:
The financial responsibility and financial structure of the applicant, the methods of financing the line-
So far as I can make out, this is the only provision in this legislation which bears on profits of pipe line companies that the board, before it should give the licence, may take into consideration. To suggest to the committee and to the country that this is a guarantee that there will not be extraordinarily high exorbitant profits, creates an entirely false impression. The government has done nothing whatever in this legislation to implement the expressions they used to use when they were in opposition any more than the C.C.F. have done anything practical in putting forward its amendment to meet this situation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In reply I wish to say that if the members of the Liberal party in the house at the present time, and particularly
National Energy Board the hon. gentleman who has spoken on this, should agree with us that they do not want to see a domination of Canadian interests in this respect by United States capital and if we, because we are not lawyers-we all come from the producing section of society, the beaver section-are not as skilled as those who are learned in the law, if they mean what they say, they have their right now, if the amendment can be improved technically, to change the amendment to give expression to the views they have expressed in this house on the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has not followed what the Leader of the Opposition said.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 45-Objections of interested persons.
George James McIlraith: I wish the minister would explain the origin of this.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is modelled on section 12, subsections 3 and 4 of the Pipe Lines Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 46-Conditions to certificates.
George James McIlraith: May we have the same explanation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 46 is modelled on section 12, subsection 5 of the Pipe Lines Act.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Section 46 is a very important one because it has to do with the terms and conditions which will lead to the issuance of certificates. It is most important in this case that the minister and the government should take into consideration that undue restriction can be more harmful than helpful in serving the purposes of this legislation. In other words, as desirable as the objective may be, we must be careful not to create restrictions of such a nature as to discourage the building of facilities instead of improving or extending such facilities. I hope the minister and the government will take this into consideration when the terms and conditions come into force which would probably be covered under the regulations.


George James McIlraith: Has the minister anything further to say on clause 46?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no question about the importance of clause 46, which deals with certification. But I think we can rely on the board when it is issuing the certificate to set out the terms and conditions that are necessary in the circumstances, with each project being considered on its merits. I am not quite clear as to all these difficulties that are in the mind of my hon. friend.

National Energy Board


George James McIlraith: If the minister will look at the clause he will find that there are some changes in this clause from the sections on which it is modelled, as taken from the Pipe Lines Act. As I read it, he has taken out the direct reference to the imposition of a time limit. It seems to me there is some real significance in that because on the leave to construct applications, it was usual to put in a time limit and if the time limit was not met the order then no longer had validity. Here we have a little different situation. The board is issuing a certificate which is final once it is issued. The matter is not quite as simple as the minister has indicated. It may well be that there is a good reason for the change, but certainly the committee has not been given it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Subsection 5 of section 12 of the Pipe Lines Act reads:
Where the board grants leave to construct a line, it may impose such terms and conditions as it considers proper and may limit the time within which the company shall construct and complete the line.
We have left out the expression about limiting the time because that is included in the expression "such terms and conditions". It is just an improvement in drafting of clause 46 which is now before us.


George James McIlraith: With deference, I suggest it is not an improvement in drafting. In the other procedure they made an order as to the time, and if the order was not fulfilled the company was not free to proceed without further application. Now, having taken that procedure away, changed it, the certificate, as it is called, is still outstanding and still valid. That is the point I want to make. It may be there is some explanation and some proper requirement for the change.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would think that the time element would be expressed as a condition of the issuing of the certificate, so that it would not just go on indefinitely.


George James McIlraith: That is the point I want to have explained. It seems to me the time limit is not sufficiently covered or protected by the new legislation. This is the point I want to make. Perhaps it is covered in some other way.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I grant that it is not mentioned. It is left to the competence of the board to determine that. In the old act all they said was they limited the time, without saying whether it should be six months or fifteen years.


George James McIlraith: Yes. Under the old act if there was an order issued as to time, then the matter was ended if the company had not lived up to that time limit and had not in the

meantime made application to have it varied or extended. I see no such right under the new legislation. It seems to me it is a small point which is not covered at all, but it could be quite important.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no question about its importance, but I am sure that the board would have a time limit as a term or condition of its certificate, and that provision is made in clause 47, under which power is given to revoke and suspend a certificate if the terms and conditions thereof are violated.


George James McIlraith: Unfortunately, in so far as this point is concerned, the certificate is made final under the new legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is made final but it can be suspended if the conditions are not met.


George James McIlraith: Yes; but under the former procedure it became inoperative merely by the passage of time without action being undertaken to have an order rescinded. Under the new procedure it requires an application and a hearing. It remains in force until steps are taken to rescind it. Was that intended?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Whether or not it was intended, I do not think that it will affect the construction of pipe lines or the issuing of certificates seriously.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 47-Revocation and suspension of certificate.
George James McIlraith: Could we have an explanation as to the origin?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 47 is not from the Pipe Lines Act but is modeled on section 3, subsection 3, of the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act which deals with the revocation of export and import licences. This is an essential provision to be placed in the act and, as you will notice, in subclause 2 provision has been made for notice to the holder of the certificate and there will be a hearing so that he can put forward his case.


Erhart Regier: I notice we have passed a clause whereby the board may, subject to the approval of the governor in council, issue a certificate for the building of a pipe line or an international power line, and naturally there will be attached to such certificate all kinds of conditions to which the applicant will be expected to adhere. In clause 47, subclause 1; we are being asked to give the board the power of revoking a certificate once issued 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. I also notice that once again in

this clause there are the words "with the approval of the governor in council". For the life of me I cannot understand why that phrase should be there.
Once a certificate has been issued upon the recommendation of the board and with the authorization of the governor in council, once the cabinet and the board have agreed upon the necessary terms and conditions, I completely fail to understand why the board should not then have the authority to exercise powers of enforcement with respect to the terms and conditions under which the certificate was issued. I do not see why the cabinet should want to retain the right to revoke or suspend a certificate. We feel that the powers of policing and the authority to enforce the terms and conditions under which the certificate has been issued should certainly be vested in the board and not in the governor in council. Therefore I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West:
That subsection 1 of section 47 be amended by deleting the words "with the approval of the governor in council''.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The reason the approval of the governor in council is required in clause 47 is virtually the same as the reason for the same approval in clause 44. You are dealing with such a major matter of business in issuing a certificate in the first place and then revoking a certificate in the second place that surely these things should not be done without the full knowledge, consent and approval of the governor in council. If a certificate has to be revoked that means the end of the operation of the company and it might create great distress and hardship far beyond the immediate circumstances leading to the breaking of any of the conditions in the certificate. The operations of a company under a certificate of public convenience and necessity may be vast, and surely my hon. friend would not suggest that any revocation or suspension of a certificate should not be reviewed by the governor in council. We are giving the board wide powers but not powers to that extent.


George James McIlraith: On the question of the amendment before the committee, it seems to us that since we have passed clause 44 which provides for the issuance of the certificate by the board with the approval of the governor in council it is not possible to have a different authority with the power to revoke. For that reason, regardless of what may be said about the powers of the governor in council, if they have it for the one they must have it for the other.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to say that is further evidence of using a verbal escape hatch to conceal a desertion of principle.
National Energy Board


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: This amendment is rather inconsistent with clause 44 which has been approved and I therefore declare it out of order.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a submission on the matter of order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The Chair is quite ready to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Erhart Regier: Thank you very much for your lenience. I realize that this may be out of line after you have made your ruling. However, in all humbleness I should like to submit that clause 44 sets out the terms and conditions upon which a certificate may be issued. When we come to clause 47 we come to an altogether different problem, the enforcement of the terms and conditions under which the certificate has been issued. It is one thing to legislate but it is an entirely different matter to enforce legislation and we are asking that the enforcement be divorced from the legislative authority.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will reconsider your ruling. I think this would be one of the dark days of the House of Commons if this kind of ruling were to be enforced. Surely no one is going to argue that because certain words appear in one clause of a bill you cannot move that those words be deleted in another clause. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has pointed out so well, clause 44 sets out certain conditions for the issuance of a certificate while clause 47 sets out certain conditions for the revocation or suspension of a certificate. If you have not yet made your ruling firm, Mr. Chairman, I would appeal to the house leader to intervene. I know he is not in favour of the amendment but I feel he is in favour of maintaining the basic right of members of the House of Commons to move amendments, and clearly this is an amendment that is entirely in order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. The ruling I made was based on my own personal judgment of the matter. Under clause 44 it is provided that the board, subject to the approval of the governor in council, may issue a certificate. Therefore it stands to reason in my view that the revocation of such a certificate must also be done by the same authority. However, I am quite willing to let the committee decide this matter although I consider personally that the amendment is out of order for the reasons I have given. I repeat that I am quite willing that the committee should be the judge of this situation if it so pleases the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, we would have no objection to having this amendment put.

National Energy Board I realize Your Honour is worried about whether or not the amendment is in order, but under all the circumstances it would be helpful if the amendment could be put.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must, in all frankness, repeat that I, personally, consider the amendment is out of order, but I offer to the committee the opportunity to judge on this amendment. Therefore, I am at present asking the committee if it is ready for this question?


Hazen Robert Argue: I take it, Mr. Chairman, you are allowing the amendment to be dealt with by the committee when the appropriate time comes for a decision on the amendment? I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having ruled this way, even after having some personal misgivings as to the nature of the amendment.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has said, this clause as it now stands would give the governor in council complete latitude to condone wrongdoing and the breaking of the rules by any company. Surely, it is one of the basic tenets of law that a decision of the court is not set aside by the cabinet.
In this instance, we have a board which has the right, in this case subject to the approval of the governor in council, to revoke or suspend a certificate if in the opinion of the board the person to whom it was issued has violated or failed to comply with any of the terms or conditions thereof. This board is almost powerless. This board is a creature of the cabinet. This board is a pawn in the hands of the cabinet. The minister has said on previous occasions they are going to do their best to get highly qualified men to become members of the board. They are going out across the length and breadth of this country to get highly qualified men to be members of the board, and then give them no power. The power that they have is merely the power to go to the cabinet and make representations. I am surprised at the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa West. He says if the company is set up at the will of the cabinet, then its life should become extinct also on the approval of the cabinet.


George James McIlraith: I am sure the hon. member would not wish to misrepresent what I said, and that is not the effect of what I said.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member can explain that when I have finished. As I understood it, he said a certificate is to be issued subject to the approval of the governor in council, so it should be revoked or suspended only with the approval of the governor in council. It seems to me that is saying that if the certificate is issued by cabinet authority then the cabinet should have the right to extinguish or not to extinguish the life of the company that has been given such a certificate.
[Mr. Green.1
If this board is to be worth its salt, if it
is to be worth the price the public will be paying the members of the board, then the board should have some power. Surely, the people who are put on this board, of whom the government says they are going to be highly qualified, should have sufficient authority to ascertain whether or not in their opinion a given company has maintained the terms of its contract. If there has been a violation which in the opinion of the board requires revocation or suspension of the certificate the board should have power to act in that regard. If there are a number of companies that have been set up, and if there are a certain number that are breaking the contracts, then according to the authorization provided the governor in council under this clause the cabinet can decide which one of the number of companies will have its certificate suspended.
This opens the door to the government allowing a continuation of wrongdoing, a flouting of the law. This also opens the door to the cabinet playing favourites in so far as certain companies are concerned and discriminating against other companies. If there should be pampered pets of the government involved, then they could allow those companies to go free and no amount of wrongdoing or breaking of contracts would result in the cancellation of the certificate because the cabinet would be on their side. On the other hand, if the cabinet should decide that a particular company, for some reason, some personal reason of certain cabinet members, should have its certificate revoked, then of course that may be allowed. For the life of me I cannot understand why the cabinet requires this far-reaching authority.
We have heard so much in the past about the authority of the cabinet being dominant over our whole national life. I do not believe the former minister of trade and commerce, about whom we have heard so much concerning his desire to get so much power for himself, would have gone any farther than the present Minister of Trade and Commerce in introducing this bill. Surely, it is not something that goes with the portfolio; that once a man becomes minister of trade and commerce he seeks to be all-powerful. This is what the government is doing in this clause, and I am very much surprised at the stand taken by the official opposition in condoning this clause and in saying that they will not support an amendment which endeavours to curb cabinet power which could be used for only one purpose, which in plain English is to allow the breaking of the law by a company building a pipe line.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have misstated our position.


Mr, Argue:: I hope that the committee will turn down the clause as it now stands and support what we consider to be a very lair amendment, and one which should be supported if we are to protect the gas industry of this country against a cabinet that can condone wrongdoing and can play favourites amongst the companies.
Mr. Chairman, it is five o'clock.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: As there are a number of divorce bills standing for consideration in committee of the whole, is it agreed that in accordance with section 1 of standing order 54, they be referred to the committee of the whole in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MARCELLE FLORE TERREAULT WRIGHT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill SD-234, for the relief of Marcelle Flore Terreault Wright -Mr. McCleave-Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Harold Edward Winch: On clause 1, I would like to ask the chairman of the committee a question. I have been given to understand that there are a number of divorce bills of a very unusual nature requiring very special study by the committee. I understand that the committee is making a very special study of certain divorce bills on which there is a question whether or not they should be passed by the house. Have we the assurance of the chairman of the committee that of all the bills we are considering none of such a nature are before us at this time?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am afraid I will have to ask the hon. member to expand his question a bit. Does he mean that none of the cases before us this afternoon are of a questionable nature?


Harold Edward Winch: Are all those now before us not of a questionable nature?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I could not give the hon. member of the committee any such assurance. I have studied the particular cases which are before the committee this afternoon. I would say there are several in the doubtful category; that is, that I myself perhaps have some reservations about. But when they were considered by the committee they did pass the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Private Bills
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-235, for the relief of Daisy Naydia Pretula Link.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-236, for the relief of Alexander Hill Forbes.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-237, for the relief of Barbara Ann Mary Curran Albrechtson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-238, for the relief of Dorothy Vera Doyle Trudel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-239, for the relief of Mary May Helen McCormick Moran.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-240, for the relief of Ethel Marguerite Nimick Hemmings.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-241, for the relief of James Donald McAllister.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-242, for the relief of Heather Joan Maxwell Firth.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-243, for the relief of Suzanne Mary Florence Peyton Young.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-244, for the relief of Elizabeth Ann Nelson Bisset.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-245, for the relief of Moira Elizabeth Latham Bruce.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-246, for the relief of Audrey Ed-wardeen Scanlan Grayburn.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-247, for the relief of Oscar Roy.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-248, for the relief of Rosy Fish Tatelman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-249, for the relief of John Andrew Buzzell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-250, for the relief of Barbara Lucy Bain Forbes Logan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-251, for the relief of Ghitta Caiser-man Pinsky.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-252, for the relief of Florida Seyer Girard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-253, for the relief of Maria Adriana Sluis Metcalfe.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-254, for the relief of Irene Kramer Segal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-255, for the relief of Lois Genevieve Good Mulcahy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-256, for the relief of Frances Lerner Rotman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-257, for the relief of Mose Takacs. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-258, for the relief of Catherine Mary Rita Durning Dossett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-259, for the relief of Dorothy Elizabeth Fremantle Fleming.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-260, for the relief of Donald Edward Cook.-Mr. McCleave.
4180	HOUSE OF
National Flag of Canada
Bill SD-261, for the relief of Maria Car-mella Gentile Hammill.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-262, for the relief of Ivy Mildred Patch MacDonald.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-263, for the relief of Mary Friend Bond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-264, for the relief of Eleanor Patricia Henderson Cosh.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-265, for the relief of Patricia McDonald Bouthillette.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-266, for the relief of Louis Marcel Blondin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-267, for the relief of Janet Marianne Louise Kippen Coulombe.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-268, for the relief of Demetra Paul Garini Liogas.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-269, for the relief of Paul Alexander Cross.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-270, for the relief of Elisabeth Marguerite Le Febvre Walker.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-271, for the relief of Joseph Roger Wilfrid Girard Frigon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-272, for the relief of Jean Paul Frechette.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-273, for the relief of Ben Plotkin. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-274, for the relief of Tibor Matthias Miletics.-Mr. McCleave.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Boulanger for the second reading of Bill No. C-6, respecting flags of Canada.
(Translation):
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to make a few brief remarks about this bill for the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag.
The matter has often been debated, and fairly recently, last February 20, 1959, it was again talked out, but comes up again this afternoon. Much has been said and written about this matter and I hope that the members of the house will limit themselves to brief remarks so that we can vote on that bill.
The Liberal party has been often criticized for its failure in the past to adopt a distinctive flag. In fact, a member of the present government the Solicitor General (Mr. Bal-cer) said, during the 1957 electoral campaign, as reported in the Nouvelliste of May 20, 1957:

Mr. Balcer stated that among concerns dear to French-Canadian hearts were those of a distinctive Canadian flag and of the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican.
Whenever those matters were raised in the commons, he said, federal members from Quebec remained riveted to their seats until the question was put and then rose only to register their opposition.
It is therefore time that hon. members on government benches take a leaf out of the Solicitor General's book and leap at the chance they now have to state their views by voting for or against a distinctive flag. If they oppose the bill, we will see that it is the party now in power which does not want it.
We often hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) preaching national unity. Only recently, at a banquet in Montreal, he told his audience that he had a surprise in store for them which would reveal the cabinet's attitude while favouring national unity.
By this bill members of the house, particularly those on the government side, are provided with a splendid opportunity to give special attention to the matter. Members of the Conservative party, who profess to belong to the party of national unity, now have a chance to say whether they are in favour of a national flag.
A public survey has been conducted in the larger cities of Canada: Victoria, Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Calgary, Toronto, London, Montreal and Saint John, New Brunswick. The result of that survey was published in the Canadian High Life News of January 25, 1958. In that survey, the following question was put to 1,200 students: "Do you think Canada should have its distinctive national flag?" The replies were 83 per cent in favour, 13 per cent against and 3.3 per cent undecided.
This proves once again that the time has come to reach a decision on this matter. If the people in Canada's large cities feel it is time to have a distinctive flag, I say and repeat that it is our duty as representatives of all Canadian citizens, to decide whether the matter of a distinctive flag should be settled today or again put off.
Mr. Speaker, when you see a country as under-developed as Ghana choose a national flag immediately upon being recognized as an independent state, whereas Canada, which contributes to assistance under the Colombo plan and helps underdeveloped countries of the world in their struggle for survival, has no distinctive flag, you cannot help feeling the absurdity of the situation which should be remedied once and for all.

A friend of mine who visited the Brussels fair was telling me that every country represented there was flying a distinctive flag, whereas Canada, if I remember correctly, flew the Red Ensign, the flag of our merchant navy. Such a situation is simply absurd. The more you go into the matter, the more you realize that it should be settled as soon as possible, in the best interest of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of dealing with this matter at any great length, and I urge hon. members to take this opportunity to indicate whether they are for or against the bill under consideration.
In closing my remarks, I ask the house to reach a decision and to put the matter to a vote.
(Text):


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: There is no doubt in my mind that the great majority of Canadians do want their own flag, and this majority has been growing during the years. Undoubtedly two wars have played no small part in influencing Canadians into wanting their own flag, because thousands of young men who went to fight in other lands wanted a symbol of their own national identity. That is what a flag provides-national identification.
I do not blame the Liberal party for not having introduced a national flag during the 22 years when they were in office, but I do think it is a little ridiculous now for them to try to find evidence in favour of a flag when they had ample opportunity in the past to do something about it themselves. None of us in this house wants this flag to become a political issue. We do not want to create a division over something which can be a very emotional matter. What we must do is call upon that well-known Canadian characteristic-compromise. With our two healthy and vocal cultures, we have built our nation through compromise. If there is any controversy over this bill, I do not believe it arises over whether we should have our own flag or not; what we have to agree upon is the design of the flag.
Like all other hon. members I have received hundreds of suggested designs, some of them absolutely monstrosities, other meaningless and still others rather attractive. But a flag is not just a selection of colour and emblems. It is a tracing of history. That is why I believe we should have the Union Jack
National Flag of Canada as our flag. The Union Jack is part of our history. It grew out of British history, which, in turn, is part of Canadian history. In a book called "The History of the Union Jack" by Barlow Cumberland, there is this description of a flag:
National flags are not merely a haphazard patchwork of coloured bunting, nor meaningless things. Their combinations have a history and tell a story.
When we look back on this history of the Union Jack, the story it tells is one of continuous growth. Part of that growth has been provided by Canada. For instance this three-crossed Union Jack of Canada is the only flag on this continent which has always been a flag of liberty, a flag by which all men, as their birthright, have been created free and equal. Other countries, in their past, tolerated slavery, but as soon as a slave reached Canada he was free. That, surely, is a fact that should make us proud.
In most parts of this world today the red ensign with our coat of arms is recognized as the Canadian flag and it seems to us particularly fitting that this should be so. Canada is the senior member of the greatest federation or combination of nations ever seen in the world history

the British commonwealth of nations. In 1901 Australia adopted the blue ensign with six stars as her national flag. New Zealand also has the blue ensign with four stars, and the white ensign as her naval flag. Surely the red ensign, or the white ensign, would be especially fitting for Canada? The white ensign might well be chosen as a distinctive Canadian flag depicting the fact that we are a northern country of snow and forests. But whatever is chosen, whether the flag is red or white or blue, let us not obliterate the Union Jack from the design.
Three arguments are mainly used against the inclusion of the Union Jack. First, it is said that it indicates British sovereignty over Canada; second, that the Union Jack has no symbol in it to represent the French part of our nation; and, third, that the Union Jack means nothing to the ethnic groups in our country. Let us consider these three arguments one by one.
As to the argument that the Union Jack indicates British sovereignty over Canada, I do not believe that any thinking Canadian really holds that view today. In his heart of heart every Canadian knows that Britain has no desire or right or inclination to infringe on our independence, our sovereignty. As to the contention that the Union Jack bears no symbol in it to represent the French part of our nation, that is true, but if our
4182	HOUSE OF
National Flag of Canada French-speaking Canadians want some symbolic emblem in our new flag, by all means let us have it. If the fleur-de-lys answers that objection, let us have it; if the maple leaf answers it, let us have it. But the fact remains that the Union Jack is still part of Canadian history and it should be in our flag somewhere.
A great Canadian, His Excellency the Governor General, once made a speech which has been put into a book, and the title of his speech was "The Quest for Unity". He had this to say:
The British tradition in Canada has fortified our sense of freedom. Today our association with the other nations of the commonwealth is an expression of political liberty. If it is sometimes said that the British connection is an evidence of "colonial subordination". Nothing could be further from the truth. The "colonial" point of view no longer exists as a factor in our national life, and is held by no thinking Canadian.
Then we are told that the Union Jack has no meaning for those ethnic groups who have come to this country and become Canadians. I cannot accept that argument, either. People from other lands came here by their own choice, knowing that the Union Jack was part of our history. They might well have been influenced by that very fact, because the Union Jack is a symbol of liberty, a flag by which all men, as their birthright, have been created free and equal. As a people I believe we are all too prone to tear down the old for the new and modem. It seems to me that in a rather immature way we appear to want to throw away all our traditions to show how grown up and independent we are.
On Christmas Day, 1957 Her Majesty the Queen in her broadcast issued this warning which I think applies very strongly to us at this particular time in our history in deciding about a flag:
It Is not the new institutions which are the difficulty. Our trouble is caused by unthinking people who carelessly throw away ageless ideals as if they were old and outworn machinery.
I believe that the Union Jack is one of those ageless ideals. It has been the inspiration of many deeds of heroism in Canada by French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians and Canadians from many ethnic groups. I say to this house, let us not throw out this part of our past and of our traditions as if it were old and outworn machinery. Let us have a Canadian flag but let us keep the Union Jack in the design of it.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, no one can quarrel with the large segment of our Canadian population that sincerely desires a distinctive Canadian flag. It is in keeping with the spirit of nationalism
[Miss Aitken.l

that is sweeping the world today, a spirit which can do great good and also great harm.
The bill before us is one way in which nationalism can be manifested and by which great harm could be done, not because of the content or the idea behind the bill but because the bill brings something which affects the emotional make up of Canadians into the political arena involving us in what you might call a cheap political trick because the bill says that the governor in council shall prepare the design, then put it to the house, and after winning the approval of the house and Senate it will be sent on its way for royal approval. You can well imagine what design at the present time would gain unanimity of opinion in the House of Commons.
This bill is not designed to promote national unity but in the way it is framed it is constructed so as to promote national disunity. I am sorry that the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) who sponsored the bill it not sufficiently interested in his own bill to be present in the house this afternoon while it is being debated so that I could address my remarks directly to him.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman has mentioned that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is not interested enough to be present during the discussion of his bill. The hon. member has personal reasons for being away from this house. Every hon. member knows the physical condition of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. If he is not here today it is because he has reasons not to be here and it is casting a reflection on the hon. member to make such a remark.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly withdraw my remark about his not being interested in the bill but will leave the rest of my statement as it stands.
We have two great cultural groups in this land both with traditions that go back to their homelands in Europe. Those of French Canada were broken by the French revolution but the traditions of English speaking Canada, by chance, were carried forward without interruption. The contribution of French speaking Canada to the growth of this country and the development of our nationalism and to the position we occupy in the world today cannot be over-estimated. After the American revolution and during the war of 1812-14 it was French Canada that was a major bulkwark of defence against aggression.
The history of this country to a great extent up to very recent times has been

the history of Upper and Lower Canada. I for one will pay tribute to the advantage we have had in the contribution of French Canada to maintaining our national integrity. The French culture has acted as a barrier against our absorption into the United States. But as we recognize the great traditions of the French speaking people so must they recognize the sources and origins of the traditions of the other main racial groups in Canada.
I resent such remarks as those made by the sponsor in introducing the bill on February 20, at which time he spoke about putting an end to spurious sentiment. Sentiment and tradition are two of the greatest things in our lives and as the previous speaker said they are not to be lightly dispensed with.
There is a form of "little canadianism"- and both words should appear in lower case letters-which can see subservience and domination in almost everything. At one time they saw it in the word "Dominion". I would expect they could see it in the procedure of this House of Commons because it is not a Canadian development but is modelled after the procedure followed in the parliament at Westminster. They might also see subservience in our laws which are based on the English common law system. Doubtless they see subservience in our present flag.
I say that this question goes beyond any consideration of subservience or domination. We must consider the question of what most truly reflects the aims, aspirations and wishes of the Canadian people as a whole, ignoring their ethnic background. Canadians comprise almost every race in the world today. Our traditions were influenced by two world wars in which thousands of young Canadian men and women served and lost their lives. There is scarcely a family in this country which has not suffered in this respect. Do we throw all of this overboard? Are we to say that the past means nothing and only the future is important? Individuals can do that but nations are bound by what has happened in the past as inexorably as we are bound to the fact that we are all fated to die some day.
I have with me a card showing the coats of arms of the provinces of Canada. Would you say that we in British Columbia are subservient because we have the Union Jack and the crown on our provincial coat of arms?


Mr. Drysdale:: No.


Ernest James Broome: And that the red cross of St Andrew, which appears in the coat of arms of Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, makes them subservient?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: No.
National Flag of Canada


Ernest James Broome: And that it is not fitting that the arms of Nova Scotia should have the cross of St. Andrew, the arms of Prince Edward Island and of New Brunswick should have the heraldic British lion. The lion is not a native Canadian animal. Should these things be dispensed with and thrown away? Is the answer, why not? The point I am trying to make is that perhaps the one thing I can agree with in the speech of the hon. member who sponsored this bill is what he said about Montcalm and Wolfe when he quoted the latin inscription which is carved in the monument on cape Diamond in Quebec city, which translates as follows:
Gallantry united them in the same death. History awarded them the same fame. Posterity built them the same monument.
In that lies unity; in remarks of that nature lie unity. But when he refers to the fact that General Nasser disagreed with the uniforms our soldiers wore as members of the United Nations force-that was one reason he cited for a distinctive Canadian flag-I say it makes no sense. What I say is that this problem, this idea of a truly distinctive Canadian flag, is good nationalism, but it must be worked out in harmony and with consideration for the background of both of the main groups which comprise the Canadian people, and also it must take into consideration the newer peoples who have come to us. There must be give and take.
The one thing that I think as a nation we are outstanding in is that we can compromise our difficulties away; that we are always willing to give in a bit to the other side so that general agreement can be reached. It is by these methods that we can accomplish what the sponsor of this bill wishes to accomplish; but it must be done in some way that does not bring politics into the picture, because once it becomes a political issue then there is political gain or political disadvantage, and this is too great an issue and too important an issue to be handled in that manner. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this bill as it stands is something that I cannot agree with, because it ignores the way in which the people of Canada wish to resolve this type of difficulty.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the hon. member permit a question, since he was a bit confused in most of his remarks. Will he tell the house whether he is really in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag, or is he against it?


Ernest James Broome: Actually there are two statements there. There was no confusion in my mind as to what I was saying. In regard to a distinctive Canadian flag, certainly I would like to see a distinctive Canadian flag.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: With or without the Union Jack?

National Flag of Canada


Ernest James Broome: So far as my personal opinion is concerned, it happens to be my opinion that anything which ignores the background of the English speaking peoples, or which ignores the background of the French speaking peoples, would not be a truly distinctive Canadian flag.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to go into the technicalities of the bill before us. I wish to discuss some of the principles of the matter and express the views of a third group of Canadians, neither English nor French. I think I have the right to reflect their ideas and thoughts; therefore I hope the house will bear with me if I make some remarks along these lines.
The question of a new flag is a very interesting one. We say we have grown up; we are no longer a British colony. But Canadians seem to be divided into three distinct groups on this particular question of a flag. I say there is one section of the country which wants a distinctive Canadian flag and which would eliminate the Union Jack and the fleur-de-lis; that is, we must erase all traces of the past that the Union Jack and the fleur-de-lis have stood for. Another section of our population wants a distinctive Canadian flag but it must have the Union Jack on some part of it. There is another section of our country that considers that discussion of the flag is taboo; it is something we must not discuss because it might hurt somebody's feeling. I feel, that when a matter of public interest cannot be discussed in a free country, that country ceases to be free. Therefore, if I am unduly frank in some of my remarks, I feel that I am in a free country which permits free discussion, and it is something that is our right and privilege.
I would go along with the hon. member for York Humber (Miss Aitken) but not in every respect. I do not wish to be repetitious, but yet I make reference to the fact that our sister nations of the commonwealth, namely Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, above all, have a Union Jack on some part of their flags. I will answer the question. I think Canada should have a distinctive national flag. I am not particular as to what colour it should be, I mean the whole field of it, whether it should be blue, red white or any other colour, but I have strong feelings, about the fact that it should contain a union jack of some kind. I cannot help it; it is in my bringing up. I remember that during the first world war when I attended public school we sang the song "We will never let the old flag fall." I still get a thrill when I think of it. I remember
(Mr. Robichaud.]
the song "Red, white and blue, what does it mean to you". It is ingrained in my generation, and I am neither of French nor Anglo-Saxon origin.
I feel that the Union Jack stands for something and that we just cannot wipe it out. It stands for our solidarity with the British empire, but not as a colony. We are not a colony. We are a sovereign nation voluntarily in the British commonwealth of nations and the Union Jack stands for that solidarity, for that empire. It stands for the tradition of freedom that we enjoy here and that people, whether white, black or yellow, enjoy wherever that flag has been planted, no matter in what part of the world. To me that flag stands as a symbol of the tradition of fair play and the tradition of British justice.
I think various sectors of our population owe a great deal to the Union Jack, and I am going to be quite frank. I have met Canadians of French origin who have confessed to me that the Union Jack meant something to them in that when the Union Jack was planted on the plains of Abraham those who planted it there did not treat them as a conquered people. That flag guaranteed them freedom of culture, freedom of religion, freedom of language and that agreement has been kept to the letter.
What does it mean to one of Anglo-Saxon origin? He brought it with him from his mother land. He brought it from England. What does it mean to the descendants of the United Empire loyalists who came to the Ontario wilderness from the colonies just to be under that flag? Their descendants have a right to their sentiment and it is a ridiculous statement for anyone to say that as a majority want a new distinctive flag the Union Jack must be wiped out altogether. That is a ridiculous statement just as it is a ridiculous statement to say that the ethnic groups which, according to some figures, comprise one-third of our population, want any other flag. I have still to receive a request from any of my fellow Canadians of any ethnic group, including my own, for a new Canadian flag. I do not think that question bothers them at all. They will be happy. Probably the young generation would be happy to have a new distinctive Canadian flag. But, as I have mentioned, there is this sentiment with regard to what the Union Jack stands for.
Some people say that we have no flag today. Yes, we have. The Canadian ensign is our flag. We are going to display it on all public buildings and public places when Her Majesty visits Canada. It is very easy to say that we have grown up but when

my son grew up I did not expect him to throw away my name, the name I gave him. I did not expect him to throw away the traditions in which I brought him up. I did not expect him to forget the language 1 taught him.
Throw away the Union Jack? Why not throw away the idea of Her Majesty being our queen? Why not throw away all the parliamentary procedure we have inherited from the mother of parliaments? Why not throw away all our freedoms? Why not throw away our tradition of justice and fair play?
I am going to make my remarks brief, Mr. Speaker, because I should like to see others state what they feel they should contribute to this debate. But I am going to tell you one thing. When the boat on which my father came to Canada approached these shores he saw that flag and found refuge under it. That applies not only to my father but to millions of immigrants from all parts of the world. To them it meant the same thing as the statue of liberty in New York harbour. It has meant that to them. It meant that to my father because that flag guaranteed him freedom and liberty.
Finally, may I say that I cannot express myself too strongly. I am in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag and I do not care what colour it is. However, I feel very strongly, and I believe there are millions of Canadians who feel the same way I do, that on some part of it the Union Jack must appear. Otherwise we are breaking away from everything we have got. Otherwise we are going to become a satellite of the United States. We will be heading toward becoming the 51st state of the United States. I want to retain our connection with the crown. I want to retain our connection with Britain, not as a servant, not as a subservient colony, but as an equal, and we are treated as such.
We are all looking forward to Her Majesty's visit to Canada. Why, tell me why this should be done. We have the same queen, common laws and common justice. Are we ashamed of that flag? Are we ashamed of keeping company with New Zealand, Australia, Rhodesia and South Africa who have retained the Union Jack on their flags?
(Translation):


Mr. Robert Lafreniere (Quebec-Monimor-ency):: Mr. Speaker, let my first remarks be an expression of deep sympathy with the former Liberal administration, particularly
National Flag of Canada bearing in mind a resolution passed in January 1958, during a Liberal convention, in favour of a distinctive national flag. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate the genuineness of my feelings because, as everybody knows, that wonderful, sincere and firm resolution was adopted by the former administration after having been in power for 22 years in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the matter we are discussing tonight is obviously of a very delicate nature. Thousands of Canadians have quite different opinions on this matter. Some favour an exclusively Canadian flag, others would like to see the past remembered, by leaving on the Canadian flag the Union Jack or the red ensign. Such views must be respected by both sides.
The Union Jack and red ensign should of course be referred to with great respect by all Canadians. Canadians of all racial origins, particularly during the last two wars, have fought under those flags. Many Canadians, of either English or French origin,, dying on the battlefield, looked their last upon this flag which we revere and respect, whatever our origin.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, we must reckon with history, and with the years, and not only years past but years to come. Our nation-as none will gainsay-is still comparatively young. While we are about to celebrate the centennial of Canadian confederation, our history goes back to no more than three or four centuries. This country which is rich in possibilties, both in human capital and natural resources, is destined to play a tremendous part in the future.
If Canadians, whose predecessors started to consolidate the national unity in 1867 with the confederative pact, want to continue that work of consolidation, I believe that Canada should choose an exclusively Canadian flag, a distinctive flag.
Of course, in this country where I believe we enjoy a greater measure of freedom than in any other, a Canadian citizen-whether a Canadian-born or naturalized citizen-must be entitled to the same rights and privileges, whatever his origin.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to those two great races, the French and English, that pioneered this country, there are thousands of Canadians who have lived in this land for many generations. Some of them already form large racial groups that are worthy of respect.
What would happen then if each of those racial groups, already large and deserving

National Flag of Canada of regard, should want to place on the Canadian flag the emblems of their own origins? It would of course lead to a practically inextricable situation. Each group would have excellent reasons for wanting on the Canadian flag an emblem reminding them of their origin.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we should forget the glories of the past. Canadians of English origin, and Canadians of French origin have both played a significant part in the history of our country. But we must consider that Canada, being a young country, must look above all toward the future. It is for that reason, most of all, that in making these remarks in the house tonight, I say I am in favour of the adoption of an exclusively Canadian flag.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to stress again all the respect, admiration and veneration I have for our history. Our country has already glorious pages of history to its credit, but how many more remain to be written about this country, Canada, which today is considered as an adult country by other nations. I believe that we should be in a position to display at international gatherings, a flag which would clearly assert our independence, our will to grow and to progress. That does not necessarily exclude, Mr. Speaker, the reproduction on a Canadian flag of a certain emblem denoting the origins of the two great races which presided over the foundation of the country in which we are proud to live today.
(Text):


Mr. H. C. McQuillan (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that whenever I speak during the private members' hour I am always on the short end of the stick. I do not mind that a bit-


Harold Edward Winch: Do not talk it out.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: -but it is almost as if they did not trust me because they think I will talk too long. I think perhaps a lot of the hon. members are like me-


Harold Edward Winch: Do not let it be said a member from B.C. talked it out.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) could be quiet for a minute. Perhaps other hon. members are like me, but I know that whenever I walk up the hill it is a matter of pride to me to see the flag flying from the masthead. I am sure that, like other hon. members, my heart swells with pride because as a member from British Columbia this has been my flag. I think many people in Canada have recognized it as their flag.
Perhaps there should be a little more recognition given to the French background
of a great part of our nation, but I feel that will come about in the course of time. I do not believe that by any stretch of the imagination a flag is going to make a nation of us. We first have to become a nation, and then we will evolve a flag, a flag which truly represents the nation of Canada. It is rather a coincidence that I am following my good friend the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreniere). I have had the pleasure of visiting him in Quebec city on two different occasions. I must say that I did not feel I was outside of Canada when I saw the fleur-de-lis flying from many of the buildings. I am sure that when they come to western Canada they do not feel that they are outside of Canada.
I believe that this whole question, Mr. Speaker, of a distinctive national flag will resolve itself as we become more and more a nation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; it is six o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: I am ashamed that a B.C. member killed this bill.


An hon. Member:: Who talked it out last time?


Mr. Speaker:: It is six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Habel:: Could we learn from the leader of the house the order of business for next week?


Howard Charles Green: On Monday we shall commence with the debate on the energy bill. When that is completed, we will take item No. 7 on today's order paper, the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act; item No. 8, the Bretton Woods Agreements Act; item No. 15, the resolution concerning Canadian National Railway Company financing; item No. 18, the resolution providing for additional judges; item No. 13, the resolution concerning the R.C.M.P.; item No. 12, the resolution concerning the Defence Services Pension Act; item No. 11, the resolution for the approval of the convention on the nationality of married women.
Hon. members will have heard the Minister of Finance say that he expected to ask for interim supply on Wednesday. There is a notice of motion which appeared on Votes and Proceedings today which will extend the hours of sitting of the house, in the hope we can get away before Christmas. This resolution will be taken, and I am not sure at what stage but it will be either on Monday or Tuesday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.