1962-12-11

Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have here the report of an accident involving an R.C.A.F. Voodoo aircraft and a T.C.A. Viscount, which occurred at Bagotville on October 10, 1962. This report is rather lengthy; it covers three pages. May I ask permission to put it on record?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister would like to make a report on an air collision which occurred at Bagotville. Does the house agree to have that report put into Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: On October 11, 1962, my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, reported to the house that, on the previous evening, an accident had occurred at Bagotville which involved a Voodoo R.C.A.F. aircraft and a T.C.A. Viscount.
At that time he stated that a complete report would be made when the official board of inquiry had been completed.
The board of inquiry has been completed on this accident and reveals that the crash occurred as a result of the aerodrome control officer issuing take-off clearance to the Voodoo aircraft before the Viscount was clear of the runway in use.
The circumstances which led to the accident are as follows. As the T.C.A. Viscount landed at 7.49 p.m., clearance was given to the R.C.A.F. Voodoo to line up on the runway and hold its position. After the Viscount had landed, the aerodrome controller cleared it to proceed to the terminal building via the first intersection. The Viscount was observed by the controller to commence a turn to the left at the first intersection. He then gave take-off clearance to the Voodoo but, at this point, his attention was momentarily diverted to other traffic on the airfield. When the controller next observed the Viscount, he saw
that it had not, in fact, completed the turn off at the first intersection and had continued on down the runway to the next intersection.
After being given clearance to taxi onto the runway, the pilot of the Voodoo lined up at the take-off position and observed the Viscount commence a turn to the left before he received take-off clearance. He then applied take-off power and checked his instruments before releasing the brakes. After cutting in his afterburners during the take-off run he again checked his instruments and then as he looked up he saw the tail of the Viscount immediately in front of him. As he had just gained flying speed and was about to retract the undercarriage, he pulled back on the control column as hard as he could in an attempt to avoid a collision. The pilot then heard a loud crash and ripping sound and the Voodoo aircraft started to go out of control. He managed to gain sufficient altitude with his disabled aircraft to enable a successful ejection.
The investigation revealed that the Voodoo struck the tail section of the Viscount just as the Viscount was commencing its turn off runway. The entire roof of the Viscount was torn out by the Voodoo undercarriage but the wheel travelled through the cabin between the seats missing the majority of the passengers. The two exceptions were the stewardess who was killed instantly and a passenger who was seriously injured at the time and subsequently died.
To attempt to eliminate the possibility of further accidents of this nature, steps have been taken to ensure that all aircraft are well clear of the runway in use before a departing aircraft is cleared for take-off.
Claims by persons who suffered injury or loss in this unfortunate accident have been made and settlements are being negotiated at present-but until such time as the negotiations are brought to a successful conclusion or adjudicated upon by the proper court, it would not be in the interests of either the claimants or the crown to make a statement concerning legal responsibility for this accident.

Question of Privilege PRIVILEGE



MR. GREGOIRE    REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF QUESTION TO ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to state the facts immediately.
It would seem that some people want to impede members in the accomplishment of their duties, or at least to practice obstruction concerning the questions they ask. Thus, some time ago I inserted a question on the order paper in which I asked what was the length of service with the C.N.R., the qualifications and the experience of the 28 senior officers which I named one after the other. The reply was as follows:
The policy of the management on the questions which have been asked has been explained many times-
It was pointed out that:
-it is not the management's policy to supply information from confidential files on officials or employees; this policy has met with the approval of the sessional committee on railways, airlines and shipping. Appointments are the result of judicious appraisal of the competence and experience of incumbents.
The information I was seeking in connection with the 28 officers of the C.N.R. is not privileged information; it only deals with their length of service, qualifications and experience. Yet the answer was that it was not customary to give such information. That is why I am requesting the reinstatement of my question on the order paper so that the house may be given an informative answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member looks up the rules, he will notice that his point of privilege is not actually what it purports to be. If he is not satisfied with the answer, as I said the other day, there may be grounds for grievance, and the hon. member will have an opportunity to submit such grievance to the house in due time. Furthermore, and this has been stated time after time, a member has no right to comment on the nature of the answer given him.
Therefore, his question of privilege was out of order-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As for his request to put back his question on the order paper, I must ask him to study the rules of the house and most particularly Beauchesne's citation 171, I think, to the effect that questions cannot be repeated.
fMr. Sevigny.]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is not only about that question; the same goes for all questions we ask about the Canadian National Railways company. We can never obtain an adequate answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Once again-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if you will kindly allow me to complete my remarks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot insist. He understands the rules as well as the others, and 1 would refer him to Beauchesne's citation 181, which can be found at the bottom of page 153, and which reads as follows: "A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal." Therefore, the hon. member cannot rise on a question of privilege and, as I indicated to him a moment ago-and I hope that will be the end of the discussion-if he has any grievances to submit to the house, he will have the opportunity of doing so in due course, but he cannot do so now.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order concerning a ruling you made on one of my questions.
I had referred to section 3 of citation 181 of Beauchesne. According to Beauchesne, it is understood that a minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal.
Now, Mr. Speaker, because of the answer given by the Minister of Transport to a question appearing in my name on the order paper and which reads as follows:
-the management of the Canadian National Railways informs us that the information concerning that question was given at the hearings of the sessional committee on railways, airlines and shipping.
I think paragraph 2 of citation 181 in Beauchesne would apply better in this case than paragraph 3-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member please refer to paragraph 3. 1 have given my ruling and he cannot question it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: And I will indicate to him once and for all that the practice followed in this house is in keeping with paragraph 3 of citation 181 in Beauchesne. Now-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me to state my point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should at least be permitted to state my views on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: No. I have indicated to the hon. member that a ruling had been made. He is free to resort to a certain procedure, but the rule is this: the refusal to answer cannot justify a question of privilege. The hon. member is asked to kindly resume his seat while the Chair states-


Gilles Grégoire: I object, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member is not trying to get a rise out of the Chair. I remind him that the rule is really as I indicated, and the matter is closed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order to state my case. The minister did not refuse to reply to my question, he gave me an answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been patient with the hon. member. I ask him to resume his seat and to let the house proceed to another matter.
(Text):



REPORTED DELAY IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR FURTHER SALES TO CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, whether he can comment on the reports that the negotiations for further sales of wheat to communist China under the current agreement are being held up because of the Chinese demand for better credit terms.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As hon. members are aware, a delegation from the Canadian wheat board has been negotiating a further sales contract under the long term agreement. No information is available that those negotiations have been concluded. I wish to assure the house that it will be informed in the usual manner as soon as it is possible to do so.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce
Inquiries of the Ministry could inform the house when his colleague the Minister of Agriculture will return, since the Minister of Agriculture is quoted as saying that he is awaiting an opportunity to make this announcement in the house.


George Harris Hees: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED EXPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CANADIAN SUBSIDIARIES OF U.S. COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Gordon (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the light of the statement made in Chicago yesterday by the Ontario economics and development minister, Mr. Macaulay, as reported in the Globe and Mail, will the minister say whether United States branch plants or subsidiaries in Canada are in fact prevented by their parent companies from accepting export orders?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that he is, directly or indirectly, inviting the Minister of Trade and Commerce to comment upon the statements of a minister not of this ministry but from outside this house. Under those circumstances and in view of the way he has put his question, I am afraid it is not acceptable.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, without reference to any comments or reports in any newspaper whatever, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether United States branch plants or subsidiaries in Canada are in fact prevented by their parent companies from accepting export orders.


Hon.. George H. Hees (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously referring to a statement made in Chicago yesterday by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the previous question was quite improper, the minister is now also embarking on an entirely improper course. The question which has now been put is in quite acceptable form. If the minister is prepared to answer it in the same manner I think we can hear his answer.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of not commenting on observations made by provincial ministers, but I am always interested to hear any observations of Mr. Macaulay, because in representing his government he is doing the same kind of job for the producers of Ontario as this government is doing for the producers of Canada.
2528	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



OIL-OTTAWA MEETINGS CONCERNING CANADIAN EXPORTS TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Are meetings being held this week in Ottawa to set a ceiling on the amount of crude oil to be exported to the United States in the next 12 months?


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member had been in the house he would have heard me make a fairly full statement on the subject a few days ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the correctness of the first part of the minister's reply is open to serious doubt. It may be that the hon. member was not here, but I do not think it was proper to comment.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question. What representations are being made to the secretary of commerce of the United States in respect of the new restrictions imposed on the use of Canadian lumber, presumably under presidential direction?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hearings by the United States tariff commission on the complaint lodged by the United States lumber industry have been completed, but so far no decision has been handed down and one is not expected until after the end of the year. At the hearings the Canadian point of view, namely that Canadian lumber should continue to be allowed to enter the United States market free of quota, was ably presented to the tariff commission and was well accepted.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alan Macnaughton (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Finance. I have not been able to give him notice, but I am sure he does not need it. In order to enable the committee on public accounts to proceed on Thursday next, will the Minister of Finance


arrange for the motion referring the public accounts to the committee to be made tomorrow, Wednesday?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: Yes, subject to the approval of the house leader, Mr. Speaker.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of conflicting reports by students, professors at Canadian universities and the R.C.M.P. regarding security investigations carried on by the R.C.M.P., could the Minister of Justice make a statement either today or tomorrow regarding the policy followed by the R.C.M.P. in connection with such security investigations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I find some difficulty in accepting a question asking for a policy statement. However, if it is deemed to be business of the house perhaps the minister could reply in that regard, if he is prepared to do so.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice in the same field as the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. In view of the fact that many universities are now electing representatives to model parliaments, would he indicate whether participation in such electoral activities leaves students open to R.C.M.P. investigation?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would think that activities with respect to some political parties might leave students open to question as to their wisdom.


Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Bur-rard):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister tell the house whether the R.C.M.P. are interviewing university students and faculty members in Quebec to inform the R.C.M.P. regarding the political activities of other students and faculty members?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister answered a previous question in similar vein, and I am just wondering whether these matters are such that they should be asked on orders of the day. Is the information so urgently
2S29

required? I am not indicating that the subject matter may not be important, but I would like to have hon. members recognize the fact that questions on orders of the day should be on important matters and that the information concerned is such that it should be sought immediately. I am just wondering whether this is one of those questions that would so qualify.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I suggest that these questions relate to a matter concerning which there are reports current at the present time, and surely if there is any point to asking questions on orders of the day it is to get statements regarding matters concerning which there is urgency before a situation develops. I submit that these questions in the light of news reports, conflicting as they are, call for a statement from the Minister of Justice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if you wish to weigh these observations on the question of urgency all I can say to you is that I have had no such complaint whatsoever. Apparently these questions stem from an editorial which appeared in a student publication.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Would the minister inform the house whether in fact the R.C.M.P. are interviewing students with a view to ascertaining information about the political activities of other students? I was not asking the minister whether he had received complaints.


David Orlikow: Does the minister not remember that several days ago I took up a particular complaint with him personally?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a supplementary; that is an assertion.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Can the minister tell us whether undue pressure has been brought to bear upon him to prevent him from giving us information about the C.N.R.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege here.
I would again suggest to the hon. member that he look up the citation concerning the nature of questions allowed in the house,
Inquiries of the Ministry and I might tell him that his inquiry was not at all in keeping with standing orders, apart from being contrary to the spirit which ought to prevail in the house.


Gilles Grégoire: In any case, it was in keeping with the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to point out to the hon. member that he is not entitled to rise and comment upon answers.


Léon Balcer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Lapointe asked several questions with regard to a crown corporation, and since I have been Minister of Transport, I have always followed the principle of dealing in one and the same way with all crown corporations for which I am the spokesman in the house. And the answers given to the hon. member were entirely in keeping with the tradition of the house, which is that report be made with regard to crown corporations according to certain rules and standards, which is what I have always done.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as far as the question of privilege is concerned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I heard the question and the minister could not rise on a question of privilege. All he did was answer a question which was not acceptable, and I hope that this will put a stop to gratuitous comments.
(Text):



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York East-


Some hon. Members:: York Centre.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will excuse itself. It has lost itself in a fog in Toronto on occasion.


Mr. James E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker was not the only one who had that happen to him.
I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In his absence perhaps the Prime Minister might answer it. Is the government pushing ahead with an estimated one billion dollar program of converting over 4,000 public buildings into community fallout shelters, as has been reported by the minister of defence to the press?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I would have to see the report of what was said before I would comment on it.

Inquiries of the Ministry


James Edgar Walker: Would it be information that the Prime Minister is seeking? If I might-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we shall adopt the conventional methods of getting it across.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, and I apologize for not having given him notice of it. Will the minister use his good offices to have all periods of the Maple Leaf home hockey games televised on Wednesday and Saturday nights?


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: will take that question as notice.
(Translation):


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister informed the house recently, to the great pleasure of all, that he had been invited to the Bahamas by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Macmillan. A London newspaper, The People, stated yesterday that the English prime minister was displeased because our Prime Minister had invited himself.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if he invited himself or if he was invited by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Macmillan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should know-and I think he does now-that it is not in order to ask the Prime Minister to comment on a news report, whatever it may be. That leads to controversy and, furthermore, by asking such a question it could be assumed that the hon. member endorses the principles or the remarks contained in that article.
(Text):


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members, I submit to Your Honour that there is no other way of finding out what this government is doing than reading the papers and then asking questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think I need comment in extenso on the nature of the question of privilege which has been raised.

(Translation):


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I should like to redraft my question.
(Text):
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has invited himself, or has he been invited, to the Bahamas.
(Translation):


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.
(Text):
Does his refusal to answer my last question mean that he invited himself to the Bahamas?
(Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Those were the hon. member's words.
(Text):



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice which is of urgent and national importance. Has the Minister of Justice received any information from the attorney general of British Columbia with respect to the visit to Ottawa of a delegation from the Sons of Freedom?



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister explain why the clerks and typists grades 1 and 2 do not benefit under the salary increase announced yesterday by the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize what the hon. member is getting at, but suggest to him that he is asking for an argumentative answer. When he asks whether the minister will explain why something is done, he is inviting an argumentative answer. Subject to that, the minister can reply to the question on an information basis, but not on an argumentative basis.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The only thing I want to get is information as to why they are not included. The minister can certainly say why they were not.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, because the pay research bureau reported in that way.

Inquiries of the Ministry



EXTENSION OF CHECK-OFF TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the government giving consideration to the extension of the check-off to all government employee organizations, as requested once again this morning by the Canadian Labour Congress?


George Clyde Nowlan: The government is giving no consideration to that at the moment, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION RESPECTING PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has taken any action to prevent the present rise in the price of bread.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, of course, that under the British North America Act the federal government has no power in that regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about Magog?


John George Diefenbaker: To the hon. gentleman who makes these observations from a sitting position I would say that his observation is as intelligent as those he usually makes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has chosen to say that my question was as intelligent as usual. He did not hear my question. My question was this. What did his Magog speech mean?


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for York South.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to intrude on the levity; however, I have a question for the Prime
Minister. I may say that I gave him notice of it. It arises out of a question I asked him yesterday. You will forgive me if I take a moment in which to draw attention to it. I had asked the Prime Minister whether the government contemplated any action in accordance with the United Nations resolution with respect to South Africa. The right hon. gentleman replied-and I am not quoting the exact words-that it was necessary to take that resolution first to the security council before consideration could be given to it.
I can well appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister cannot carry every detail in his mind. However, in view of the fact that the statement made by the Prime Minister was in error, would he now inform the house whether the government is considering implementing paragraph 4 of the resolution passed by the general assembly of the United Nations on November 6 last requesting the member states of the United Nations, without reference to the security council, to undertake certain measures against South Africa, particularly to boycott South African goods and to refrain from exporting goods to South Africa?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are one or two things I should like to say. First of all I think the hon. member is commenting on the nature of a reply given, and that his statement that the answer was in error is not in accordance with the practice of this house. Subject to the consideration that this procedure was not proper, if the Prime Minister wishes to reply he may do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the first part of the question is concerned, namely that my statement was in error, may I say this. What I stated represented the views of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) who is fully cognizant of these matters. It was following discussion with him that I made the statement in question.
As to the latter or effective part of the question may I say this. This government has taken the stand that sanctions have not been effective at any time. It is all very well to argue that we should indulge in sanctions against South Africa. This is one of the countries with which we have dealt on the friendliest terms throughout the years. Sanctions would have the effect of denying to Canadians business to the extent of perhaps $40 million or $50 million a year. As sanctions have been proven to be ineffective in the past, such action will not be taken by this government.

Inquiries of the Ministry
COMBINES	INQUIRY AS TO REVISION OF BANKRUPTCY ACT



SUGGESTED TRANSFER OF LEGISLATION FROM CRIMINAL TO CIVIL FIELD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the government now studying means of transferring anti-combine legislation from the criminal field to the civil field?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the answer to as broad a question as that must be no, but I have indicated on several occasions that any suggestions anyone wishes to put forward for improvement of our combines legislation or administration will be very carefully studied. The hon. member must know that the basis of federal jurisdiction in this field has been construed by the courts to be the authority of parliament in relation to criminal law.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary or related question to the one just addressed by the hon. member for Leeds. Has the government had any communications with the provincial governments with respect to sharing jurisdiction over combines legislation for the purpose of broadening the base?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. In view of the Minister of Labour's comment before the Canadian Labour Congress delegation today that the C.L.C. criticism of the government's emergency surcharges is a reflection of the views of large United States industries, would the minister tell us if there has been any change in the government's announced plans to abolish these surcharges at the earliest possible moment?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour has been proved wrong again.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Leon Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister inform the house whether his department or his officials are studying a revision of the Bankruptcy Act of Canada, or whether submissions have been sent to them requesting either amendments to or a revision of the Bankruptcy Act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there is before the Senate a short bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act. It may come forward to this house soon. Apart from that, a more general revision of the act has been under study for some time but it will not be ready to be introduced at the present session. However, it has been indicated to those who may be interested that the government will be pleased to receive any suggestions with respect to amendments to the act at any time, and these will be carefully studied.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the obders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Will employees of crown corporations that come under the jurisdiction of the minister receive pay increases comparable to those announced for classified civil servants, and will they be retroactive to the same dates?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: This depends on the arrangements of the crown corporations, and as far as I know the answer is no.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister intends to report to the house following his conversation with the presidents of the two railway companies with regard to the vexatious matter of railway branch line abandonment.


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether he has received requests from the provincial

governments on the prairies to delay proceedings until after the Regina conference on December 20?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have received some representations. We have answered those representations in writing, and we have emphasized the fact that these matters are being handled by the board of transport commissioners and that while it might appear that there were quite a number of them, the board of transport commissioners could not process more than a rather small number of those requests up to the time the legislation on the MacPherson commission report could be implemented by the House of Commons.
(Translation):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
Atlantic Development Board POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Kootenay East asked if an application had been received from the province of British Columbia for a licence under the International River Improvements Act to construct a dam or a weir in a tributary of the Kootenay river. I am now in a position to advise the house that no such application has been received in my department.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: have a question for the Minister of Labour.
A month ago I asked him a question about unemployment insurance coverage for Canadian loggers working in the state of Maine. In his reply he stated that Canada and the state of Maine were continually negotiating toward an agreement which would be forthcoming in a matter of a few months.
Could he tell us now whether any real progress has been made in the last month toward reaching such an agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member reads Hansard for yesterday or the day before, I believe he will find his answer.
(Text):



PRINTING AND BINDING OF GILL COMMITTEE REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my daily question of the Secretary of State to find out whether he has yet discovered whether the Gill report has been completed by the printing bureau and is ready for distribution.


George Ernest Halpenny: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This morning I was advised that the Gill report will be available to hon. members in both French and English sometime before the end of this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What a farce.


George Ernest Halpenny: This will allow hon. members to consider fully the contents before they return on January 21.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, December 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-94, to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board-Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton)-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 5-Travelling and living expenses.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening an amendment to clause 5 was under consideration, and I want to address myself to that amendment before we proceed this afternoon. Last evening, when this bill was before the committee, the Minister of Fisheries moved the following amendment:
That Bill C-94, an act to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board be amended by striking out subclause (2) of clause 5 thereof and substituting therefor the following: (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the chairman of the board may be paid such amount per annum as an honorarium as may be approved by the governor in council.
Whereupon the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raised a point of order on the ground that the effect of the amendment would be to raise a charge against the exchequer and that no such charge may be imposed without a message from the crown.
It would appear that the amendment does not in itself provide for an increased charge. It merely inserts a general provision for one of a specific nature. At any rate, authority for the acceptance of such amendments is to be found in section 3 of citation 246, Beau-chesne s fourth edition, which in part reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached,

Atlantic Development Board
must be treated as laying down once tor all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
In this case, the communication to which the royal demand or recommendation was attached is the resolution presented to the house on Monday, November 19 last. That resolution reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish an Atlantic development board and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the board and for the payment of certain expenses of the members thereof, to provide for the appointment of an executive director of the board and for the payment of his remuneration, to provide further that the board may engage the services of such advisers and staff as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its duties and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.
As the recommendation of the crown did not specify or place a limitation on the amount of the charge to be imposed by provisions of this bill, it is suggested that the amendment is in order.
I might point out at this stage that this ruling is consistent with the decision I made earlier last evening with respect to the amendment presented by the New Democratic party to increase the membership of the board from five to 15.


Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, last evening when the committee rose we had just listened to a dissertation from the hon. member for Essex East in connection with certain aspects of the Atlantic development bill. I wonder how it is that the hon. member for Essex East is delegated as the spokesman for the official opposition in connection with this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will permit me-


Hugh John Flemming: I wonder who has the floor, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the minister would not deny me the opportunity to explain that I am not the official spokesman. I am just following the leadership of the Liberal maritime members, and as a Canadian I am showing interest in the Atlantic provinces, as we all should.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A very belated interest-about 30 years late.


Hugh John Flemming: I quite agree with the observation that it is somewhat late. Anyway the hon. member had been expressing an opinion that this bill in its present form was a useless one so far as the Atlantic provinces were concerned, and was good for nothing. That is my understanding
(The Chairman.]
of what he said, and in the absence of any contradiction I shall assume that is what he said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course I never said that at all.


Hugh John Flemming: All right, Mr. Chairman. I have his words before me, so let us examine the record. He said, as reported in Hansard of yesterday's date at page 2524:
Then let him come back and tell us that he has in mind somebody who will spend his full time on the job, who will be paid a salary adequate to the demands which will be made upon him. No explanation less than this will satisfy this house. No explanation less than this will satisfy the Atlantic provinces. Anything less than this will be evidence of an intention on the part of the government to introduce in this bill something that looks good in form but which is not capable, in its very wording and provisions, or doing anything substantial to help the Atlantic area.
That is the basis upon which I say he says the bill is useless.


An hon. Member:: No, he didn't.


Hugh John Flemming: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is a proper interpretation of his remarks. It does not bother me at all to have these interruptions by maritime members who express lip service to this bill, but actually in practice, I am afraid, their actions in this house are capable of a very different interpretation.
The hon. member professed to speak for the Atlantic provinces last evening. He professed to see in this bill something which they would not appreciate, something which did not go as far as it should in providing a vehicle by which the various submissions that have been made over a long period of time to various governments might receive attention and subsequent action. He expressed, I am sure he would be the first to admit, a tremendous amount of doubt as to whether it was any good.
Well, Mr. Chairman, with respect to his speaking for the Atlantic provinces I would say this. I might also just mention at this time words that have been uttered in this house by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in connection particularly with Prince Edward Island. I think if he listened to the results of the election in Prince Edward Island yesterday they were quite capable of giving the answer, and they gave it. I do not think the results gave a great deal of satisfaction to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate or the hon. member for Essex East, or perhaps any of our hon. friends sitting within my particular range of vision at the moment. Now, coming back-


Mr. Robichaud:: What clause of the bill is this?


Hugh John Flemming: We quite understand the hon. member for Gloucester's ignorance of it because he has paid no attention to it since he has been here, so why would he know anything about it now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the committee simply this. I will leave politics aside for the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, they chose to introduce the subject and they required an answer. I am sure the hon. member for Essex East received his answer and I hope he is satisfied. But I would like to refer hon. members to the editorials which appeared in the St. John Telegraph-Journal and the Fredericton daily Gleaner after this bill was introduced.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -perhaps hon. gentlemen would allow me to make my point of order and then they can speak to it. My point of order is that we are supposed to debate measures in this house and not to import into such debate comments from editorials-this was raised the other day when I quoted one -that appear before or after a measure has been dealt with. We are not supposed to import them into our discussions. There are several I would like to read. I do not want to restrict the minister, but I hope the same liberty will be accorded to both sides of the house.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Could the minister advise the committee whether he was reading from an editorial?


Hugh John Flemming: No, Mr. Chairman, I was not reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was discussing it. I did not suggest that he was reading.


Hugh John Flemming: I was
simply quoting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: From memory.


Hugh John Flemming: From memory, that is right. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman from Bonavista-Twillingate has ever quoted from memory. I think he has,
Atlantic Development Board but very seldom accurately. Here is my point, Mr. Chairman, and it is a relatively important one. Who are we going to accept as the authority on the maritime provinces and on their problems? Are we going to accept the hon. member for Essex East, or are we going to accept even the hon. member, the transplanted member, from Bonavista-Twillingate, who I welcome as a fellow Atlantic province citizen?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Or do we accept the Gleaner?


Hugh John Flemming: Let us
not get into that.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You started it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let us come back to the bill.


Hugh John Flemming: This is the point I am making, Mr. Chairman. Whom do we take our authority from? Whom do we take for guidance?


An hon. Member:: We take the voters.


Hugh John Flemming: You can
take the voters of Prince Edward Island yesterday, if you like. They expressed their approval yesterday of the actions of this government and of this measure. There is no doubt about that. Undoubtedly it was mentioned. This is what I am trying to get up to if I can get a little bit of attention, Mr. Chairman. The editorial comment in those two newspapers indicated that the bill before the committee which we are considering at the moment clause by clause has tremendous possibility for the Atlantic provinces.
I do not think any hon. member opposite would say that one of those newspapers is particularly friendly to the administration. The other newspaper supports the administration because the administration have a definite policy with respect to the Atlantic provinces for the first time in about 50 years. We have paid special attention to the Atlantic provinces. It was requested from the government of which the hon. member for Essex East was a member, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member, of which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was a member, but the words fell on deaf ears and no result was seen until this government came into office.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I thought the general debate was over and that we were specifically addressing ourselves to a very much narrower amendment. I would ask the co-operation of the minister in this connection.

Atlantic Development Board


Mr. Bell (Saini John-Albert):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recall, very respectfully, that last night when the hon. member for Essex East jumped into the debate it is impossible that he could have been discussing anything in this bill because he has not read it. It is impossible that he could have been discussing anything about the maritimes because he does not even know where the maritimes are. Therefore I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we have been allowed to stray a little from the clauses of this bill; and to call the minister to order now when he is replying to some of the charges that were made last evening is pushing the rules of this house too far.
May I also mention, on a point of order, this matter to which the hon. member from Bona-vista-Twillingate keeps referring; that is, the quoting of newspapers with respect to debate taking place in the house. This is the third time he has invoked this citation without referring to it and I think if he keeps it up he may be giving us a bad precedent. The citation in this connection is No. 157 of Beau-chesne, and I quote from page 133:
The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper, an author or a book which reflects upon debate before the house, either directly or indirectly is entirely out of order, because members are here to give their own opinion and not to quote the opinion of others . . .
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that when the minister wants to quote from a newspaper editorial that compliments, as most of them do, this particular bill establishing an Atlantic development board, it is quite in order provided it does not reflect upon any of the remarks that hon. members themselves may have made about the bill in the debate.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I did not hear the hon. member for Essex East-


An hon. Member:: You will.


Gordon Campbell Chown: -nor can I judge whether I was lucky or otherwise in not having done so. But this is an amendment narrow in its scope and, as the minister realizes, there will be other opportunities to debate the bill more generally, perhaps on third reading. At the moment we should try to address ourselves to the amendment which is before the committee.


Hugh John Flemming: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have mentioned that I felt, gathering from his remarks that the hon. member for Essex East had not read the bill. I repeat that. I do not think he has read the bill. He may have read it by now, of course; he has had overnight in which to do it. If he has done so he will have found that this measure provides for the very thing
[The Chairman.]
the absence of which he complained about last night. It provides for a full time executive director. If we could persuade the official opposition to go through this bill I am confident that when they got to the last clause they would feel satisfied that the various points they have raised have been well covered. That is my opinion.
Since we are talking on the question of salary, let me say, as I have said in this house on two or three occasions, that I think it is in the interests of the bill, in the interests of the progress which I hope will be made under the bill, and in the interests of the laudable results which we believe will be achieved by it, that we should go ahead and delete this provision for a $3,000 salary which is laid down in the bill as originally written. I think that to do so will strengthen this measure. I am sure all hon. members, many of whom have had more experience than I in administration and in the work of this house, will admit that there are many boards where remuneration to members is fixed by order in council. I am satisfied that if hon. gentlemen opposite would allow themselves the luxury of a fair and dispassionate approach to this question they would be the first to admit it.
While I am on my feet I should like to make one last appeal in connection with this bill. As everyone knows, I am anxious to see the bill pass through this house and go to the other place. I believe hon. members on all sides share this desire. I am going to ask hon. members in the other parties for their cooperation to this end, without wanting to restrict any general observations which they feel may result in improvement as far as the operation of the legislation is concerned. Undoubtedly the people who will be chosen to compose this board will read carefully the observations which are made in this chamber. Undoubtedly an effort will be made to meet the various views which are expressed here. With that qualification, I want to see us make some progress; I should like to have unanimous consent for third reading here this afternoon.
That is all I have to say at the moment. I believe I have covered the points raised by the hon. member for Essex East, though perhaps not to his satisfaction and only partially to my own. But I have said enough about this matter, and I have stated once again my view that the salary to be paid should be left flexible so that it may be dealt with by order in council. I believe that represents an improvement over the provision which was originally written.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has made an appeal for co-operation in expediting the

progress of this bill, an appeal which probably would have aroused a little more sympathy on this side if he had not made his earlier remarks, which were certainly designed to provoke some counter comments from the opposition, and especially if the hon. member for Saint John-Albert had not seen fit to make reflections on some of my hon. friends.
If I do raise a small point I hope the minister will not accuse me of not having read the bill. He has been dealing with a matter of some importance, one in regard to which we thought we could improve this bill. It is, of course, our duty as the opposition to draw attention to improvements which we think could be made in a measure even where we have approved it in principle.
The hon. gentleman has said it was not reasonable that the chairman should be a full time member of this board. He said it was not reasonable to put into the bill the salary to be paid to him, and had we read the bill, we would have seen that there is to be an executive director appointed under clause 11, an executive director who of course would be subordinate to the chairman of the board. But though the minister may think this is the best way to proceed in regard to this board, I must call his attention, even at the risk of being out of order, to the provisions which are to govern another board which we shall be considering under which the chairman himself is to be the executive director. The government decided, in the case of that board, that this was the right way to proceed. He, the chairman, is a full time official of the board. We thought that was the best way to proceed in connection with the board we are now discussing, and that was the point of our remarks.
However, I can understand the minister's desire to get this bill through as quickly as possible, and we on this side have no wish to delay its passage subject to the proper discharge of our duty. Since we have had a good discussion on this matter we on this side, as far as we are concerned, are prepared to withdraw our opposition to the amendment the hon. gentleman has suggested.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Speaking on the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say to the minister that this is not the first time he has appealed for co-operation. He can appeal until he is blue in the face but the bill will not go through until we have made our remarks on it. He has already asked for cooperation and received it; whereupon he proceeded, along with his supporters, to take 27507-3-161
Atlantic Development Board up more time than anyone else on this measure. The minister suggested on second reading that he would welcome objective, nonpartisan proposals by hon. members for the improvement of this bill.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has not been relevant to the amendment in his remarks up to the moment, and I would ask him to come back to it.


Donald MacInnis: I was just leading up to an amendment I was about to propose to the amendment which is before us. If the minister really meant what he said the other night when he told this house he would welcome proposals from members of the opposition, I ask him to consider this amendment. I move:
That the amendment to subclause (2) of clause 5 be amended by inserting after the word "chairman" in the second line thereof the words "who shall be a full time officer", and by deleting the words "amount per annum as an honorarium" and substituting therefor the words "salary and expenses", so that the amended subclause shall read as follows:
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the chairman, who shall be a full time officer of the board, may be paid such salary and expenses as may be approved by the governor in council.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would deal with this in the light of what you said on the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I refer at once to the resolution on which this bill is founded. The resolution provides for the appointment of a chairman and other members of the board and for the payment of certain expenses of the members thereof. The resolution limits what can be paid to the members of the board in the nature of expenses. This amendment which has just been offered by the hon. member refers to the payment of a salary, which is quite outside the ambit of the resolution and is, I submit, definitely out of order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is there any other argument on this amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, all you need look at is the ruling which you gave at the commencement of the committee sitting this afternoon. If the point now made by the hon. member for Peace River were to be maintained it would not be possible under the terms of the resolution to accept the amendment moved by the Minister of Fisheries. It seems to me that the breadth of the resolution introduced on November 19 does permit not only the sort of amendment which was moved by the Minister of Fisheries, but also the sort of amendment which is now proposed to the Chair.

Atlantic Development Board


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, it comes to my mind that the difference between the example that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has given and the point made by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister is that the Minister of Fisheries is a minister of the crown and can move these money amendments, whereas the hon. member for Cape Breton South is an ordinary private member and cannot do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that point, Mr. Chairman, the question raised last night by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was that the motion proposed by the Minister of Fisheries concerned a charge on the crown beyond what was approved, and therefore that the recommendation of the crown was called for. You, sir, from the chair today ruled that no further recommendation from the crown was called for because the recommendation of the crown with regard to the original resolution was broad enough.


Gerald William Baldwin: In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, this debate has proceeded all along on the basis that the word "honorarium" can be included within the word "expenses" in the resolution. I think it has been accepted by all members on both sides of the house that there is no exception to that. But there is a vast distinction between an honorarium as being attached as an expense, and a salary, which is of course a definite remuneration not in any sense of the word contemplated to be within the term "expense".


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, if that is the only problem that the parliamentary secretary has with this amendment, we would be glad to leave "salary" out of the wording and pay the chairman nothing but expenses. We do not care how he is paid or what wording is used, or whether he should be paid $10 an hour expenses. The main plank of the amendment is that there be a full time officer who can direct the activities of the board and see that something gets done. I would ask the minister who is introducing this bill what he has against having a full time chairman of the board.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The problem is the one already brought up. I was having difficulty in distinguishing between honorarium and salary. If the hon. member for Cape Breton South would remove the word "salary" from the proposed amendment I would be prepared to have another look at it.


Donald MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that will be fine. I will substitute the words "honorarium and expenses" for "salary and expenses".


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. member for Cape Breton South will have to withdraw his original amendment and reword it. Then he can present another one with the unanimous consent of the committee. Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, while some colleague of the hon. member, who would have a perfect right to move an amendment anyway, is drafting another amendment which could be moved, I am going to make an appeal to the minister, as I did on second reading. My appeal to the minister is that we solve this problem in another way entirely, in the way suggested at the time of second reading of the bill; that is, by having a minister as the chairman, and then there would not be any need for an honorarium, expenses or anything else. If that were the case we would have someone who was actually in the cabinet and who could see that the impact of this board was made directly upon the government. I think that would give this bill, even without a capital fund, a lot of value which it has not got now, because the chairman of the board would then be a member of this house who could be questioned by other hon. members as to how the board was progressing, what it was doing, what it was accomplishing. In that way we would not be insulated from it, as we will be with a part time chairman and a director, who has to go through the chairman to the minister and the minister then has to go to his colleagues.
I would ask the minister to take that matter up with his colleagues and to give consideration to it. I suggest that instead of proceeding with the amendment which the Minister of Fisheries has placed before us, the government ask the Minister of Fisheries to withdraw it and put forward another amendment which would make the chairman of the board a member of the government. I would certainly hold up both hands for that, and I would have a lot more complimentary things to say about the bill than I would with the bill in its present form. I ask the minister whether he will say something about that suggestion.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind saying something about it. I believe it would not only not help or improve the bill, but in my opinion it would be detrimental to the activities of the board, because there would be so many times when that minister would not be available for that duty. There are members opposite, of

whom the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate is one, who have some idea, I think, of the many demands made on ministers. It is on that basis that on balance I think our original idea of having a chairman who would devote part of his time, and having a full time executive director, should stand.
While I am on my feet I should like to make an observation about the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, because in my opinion there is no particular connection between the framework under which the Atlantic development board will operate and the framework within which the national economic board might operate. Conditions might be altogether different; I think every hon. member would acknowledge that. It just so happens that the government suggests-and it is quite prepared to take full responsibility for this-that the chairman shall be part time and that the board shall be a part time board. But they will have as an executive director a most competent individual, the best man they can possibly get, with knowledge, with dedication, and with the various attributes which will lend itself to a fair prospect of progress and success.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is my hon. friend not aware of the fact that in the United Kingdom, where ministers of the crown likewise have great preoccupations, the chancellor of the exchequer has taken on the chairmanship of a national body whose functions in principle are not dissimilar to those under the proposal now before the committee but whose actual accomplishments, I think, are greater than those presently indicated under this measure will be as far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned. Hence merely because the minister is busy, should not preclude the acceptance of a proposition put forward. To do so would be to ignore completely what is done in other countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and West Germany.


Hugh John Flemming: Perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has a point there. However, the Minister of Justice has brought this fact to my attention, and I am sure hon. members opposite would consider this point most desirable. It is considered desirable that this board be entirely divorced from governmental direction so far as examination of various situations presented to them is concerned. I think that is also a tremendously important point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, may I say this bill does not provide for that. As clause 9 clearly provides, the objects which the board will inquire into must be dealt with by way of a report to the 27507-3-1614
Atlantic Development Board minister. This is not an independent body that is being set up. This is a body which is no different in character from a government department, and that is what we are complaining about.


Hugh John Flemming: I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he read at paragraph (d).


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have done so.


Hugh John Flemming: The hon. gentleman will find that under paragraph (d) they may have projects or situations brought to their attention, anything that they may consider usefully. I believe that is the phraseology used. I submit that is a fairly broad word.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And report to the
minister.


Donald MacInnis: The minister has proceeded to investigate other clauses of the act about which we shall have something to say as well a little later on, but to come back to the specific item before us at the moment, if it is in order to do so I should like to rephrase the amendment and move as follows:
That the amendment to subclause 2 of clause 5 be amended by inserting after the word "chairman" in the second line thereof the words "who shall be a full time officer", and by deleting the words 'amount per annum as an honorarium", and substituting therefor the words "honorarium and expenses", so that the amended subclause shall read as follows:
"2. Notwithstanding subsection (1), the chairman, who shall be a full time officer of the board, may be paid such honorarium and expenses as may be approved by the governor in council."


Gordon Campbell Chown: Atlantic Development Board that I am obliged to say that this subamendment goes outside the scope of the clause under consideration and the bill itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, will you not hear argument before you rule on it?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Yes, I shall be glad to hear argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As Your Honour realizes, we thought that the point raised with regard to the amendment as previously worded was cleared up when the word "salary" was changed to the word "honorarium". You now seem to be bothered by the question of whether the terms of the resolution are wide enough to contemplate a full time chairman.
I just heard you say a moment ago that you do not read in the resolution the contemplation of a full time chairman. I submit that you cannot read in the resolution any opposition to the chairman of the board being full time. The resolution which is the basis for the bill says that there is to be introduced a measure to establish an Atlantic development board and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the board and for the payment of certain expenses, and so on. In that phrase providing for the appointment of a chairman and other members of the board there is nothing which says it is contemplated that they be part time, full time, spare time or what have you. The phraseology is "to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the board". I submit that it is within the four corners of that very broad provision for the bill to provide that one of the members of that board shall be on a full time basis. I think you were right earlier, Mr. Chairman, when you suggested that all that was needed was to change the word "salary" to "honorarium".


Gordon Campbell Chown: I thank the hon. member for his contribution directed toward assisting the Chair. May I say that I am having as well some difficulty as to relevancy. When you look at the explanatory notes in the bill having to do with the clause under consideration you find opposite subsection 1 the words "travelling and living expenses" and opposite subclause 2 the words "honorarium to chairman". That is what led me to the point of view that this amendment which contemplates a full time chairman does extend the scope of the bill. I probably do not need to quote these authorities. However, I will put them on the record anyway. I refer to Beau-chesne's fourth edition, page 285, citation 406 which states as follows:
Amendments are out of order if they are (a) irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope,-
[The Chairman.]
That is the premise on which I rose to make a ruling on this particular subamendment. Then May, sixteenth edition, page 554, states at the beginning of the paragraph:
An amendment which is out of order on any of the following grounds cannot be proposed from the Chair:
1. An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
So I have to find, if not on the other basis certainly on the basis of relevancy, that this subamendment is out of order.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 9-Objects and powers.
Mr. McLean (Charloiie):: Mr. Chairman, I must admit I am a little bit timid about rising in this house but I think the bill is very important to the maritimes. I have great sympathy for the minister. I came here as a businessman and after being in the house for two months I have quite a bit of sympathy with the government in that they have appointed their businessman to the other chamber. I have known the minister for a great many years. I know his heart is in the maritimes. I know we see eye to eye on tight money. I know we see eye to eye on the premium on the Canadian dollar.


Mr. McCleave:: Come over here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, just the opposite; the minister should come over here.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: I should like to quote now from the Globe and Mail and I am not quoting this against the minister at all. The editorial quotes the minister as saying:
I consider that the proposed legislation to set up an Atlantic development board is the most forward step ever taken in my lifetime for the benefit of the Atlantic provinces.
That was said by the minister, and the Globe and Mail goes on to say:
It is difficult to share Mr. Flemming's enthusiasm.
I think the bill is a step in the right direction, although a small step. I have to support the minister in this move because I know his heart is in the maritimes. We have had a lot of commissions in the maritimes. The editorial goes on to say:
All inquiries into the economic backwardness of the four provinces reached much the same conclusion. They all recognize that the area has immense unexploited natural wealth side by side with poverty and unemployment. They all recommend that the federal government should provide large sums of capital to give the maritimers a start in developing their resources.

I believe this is something that the bill lacks. We have had problems and we have had lots of advice, but in the maritimes we need money. If we cannot get cash on the barrelhead I think a fund should be set up and earmarked for the maritimes so that the government cannot spend the money on something else. Therefore I move:
That clause 9, subclause 1, be amended by adding a new paragraph after paragraph (b) as follows:
"(c) prepare a capital projects program providing for the expenditure over a five year period of two hundred and fifty million dollars as federal capital assistance for projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the Atlantic region;"
and by relettering paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and paragraph (d) as paragraph (e).


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Charlotte.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I should like to hear from hon. members on its admissibility first.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a point of order with respect to the amendment which has been put before the committee. I have not looked at the authorities but it seems to me that the amendment is contrary to the rules and also contrary to the resolution preceding the bill in that it is not proper for an hon. member to present such an amendment. Therefore I raise a point of order with regard to it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to say a word or two on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Halifax, I would point out to Your Honour that the amendment does not prescribe any expenditure whatsoever. I was well aware of the fact that it would be improper to attempt to prescribe expenditures. All this proposal does is to authorize the board to prepare a capital projects program providing for the expenditure but the decision, as the minister properly pointed out last night when he was replying to me in another context, as to whether these expenditures would be recommended to parliament would have to be made by the governor in council and would have to appear in the estimates or in some other form.
All the amendment does is to set a target or goal for the board of a more precise nature than the targets or goals that are now there. It does not commit the government to spend one extra sou, except perhaps for a little expenditure on research which is provided for anyway. All it does is to focus the attention of the board on a capital projects program of a certain magnitude. Therefore it seems to me that the amendment does not in any way
Atlantic Development Board transgress the rule that a member who is without a message from the crown cannot propose any expenditure.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If I may deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I would point out that the amendment means either one of two things. It either means that money is to be spent, in which case I submit my original point of order was well taken, or else it is a contrived trick by the hon. member who has moved the amendment; and I would not want to think that he had so done. If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is to be believed the amendment would give the appearance of expenditure to the public, but would really mean something else by reason of his placing the emphasis on the words "prepare a capital projects program" and forgetting the words "providing for the expenditure". He cannot have it both ways. I submit the amendment is clearly a money measure and therefore out of order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I have listened to the very persuasive argument of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. In this amendment the words "providing for the expenditure" seem to be in conflict with section 61 of the standing orders, which reads as follows:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid-
And I emphasize those words "any public aid".
or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint, and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
Looking at the wording of the amendment, the implications in all directions seem to point to ultimate expenditure of public funds, and I hearken back to an authority I quoted earlier today when I referred to section 3 of citation 246 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which, in part, reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
Therefore if we go right to the basis of the whole bill, the resolution itself, such a capital outlay as this should have been contemplated there. On that ground also I have to find the amendment of the hon. member for Charlotte out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we leave this clause, Mr. Chairman, I am going to make an appeal

Atlantic Development Board to the government to amend it in the way which the hon. member for Charlotte has suggested it he amended, but to leave out the phrase mentioning the sum of money. I may say respectfully, sir, and I am sure I can say it respectfully, that I do not agree with your ruling but I am not challenging it. I am going to appeal to the government, as everybody was led to believe that this death bed repentance after five years by the government, as represented by this bill, would contain an explicit carrying out of point No. 5 of the famous Moncton charter. It will be found that it is almost in exactly the same language as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Charlotte, who obviously was very familiar with the Moncton charter, as is everyone else in those provinces. It reads:
Capital projects program to provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area.
As an evidence of good faith, and if this board seriously intends to carry out that promise to bring about a capital projects program, I suggest that the minister amend the clause, that he put in a separate amendment in the precise language as suggested, as nearly as it can be done with the necessary legal draftsmanship. It does not require very much change to provide that the board prepare a capital projects program providing for federal capital assistance. He can just leave out the phrase dealing with expenditure over a five year period of $250 million, if that worries the government. The government is not committed to spend that; it is just a goal.


An hon. Member:: It may not be enough.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may not be enough, but it would be nice to have something. I do not see what 22 years in the past, or even the past five years have to do with it. If the government is ready now to carry out the promise it made five years ago, we would like to help it.


Mr. Churchill:: Do it by passing the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right, I will assist the government by passing the bill. I will move:
that clause 9, subclause (1) be amended by adding a new paragraph after paragraph (b) as follows:
(c) prepare a capital projects program providing for federal capital assistance for projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the Atlantic region;
and by re-lettering paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and paragraph (d) as paragraph (e).
That does not say anything about a sum of money. It does not commit the government to anything, but it does instruct the board to prepare a capital projects program as was promised in Moncton in 1957. I have done

this just by striking out certain words in the other amendment, and I think it overcomes Your Honour's objections.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, this again raises a point of order in that it seeks to do in a different way precisely what was ruled out of order a few moments ago. Even without setting forth a specific target of money it does suggest the expenditure of money, and for the reasons I gave before is clearly out of order.
I would also submit that there may be a point of redundancy here because subparagraph (c) contains a reference to "measures or projects", and as I understand it, the key word in this particular amendment is also "projects". For those two reasons I think that the hon. member should not be permitted to do by a back door method what his colleague was unable to do a few moments ago.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am still having difficulty with this amendment. The previous amendment has been amended again by taking out certain words that were specifically pointing to encroachment on the financial initiative of the crown. For the reason I have already given and the authorities I have quoted I believe this amendment is covered again to some extent, or perhaps entirely, in the present subclause (c) of clause 9, and I find that the amendment is out of order.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make an observation concerning the amendment. I know it has been disposed of, but with unanimous consent I should like to refer back to it and say it is a bit unfortunate that in his maiden speech the hon. member for Charlotte was so restricted so far as time was concerned. I am sure I am expressing the hope of all hon. members when I say I trust the time will come in the not too distant future when we will be favoured with more extended remarks by the hon. member in connection with economic matters respecting which he has an excellent reputation in our part of the country.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 9 carry?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before this clause is carried I would like to say a few words and I shall try to be brief. I must say I am amazed at the insistance of the government in refusing to attach to the bill provision for a capital assistance fund, after all that has been said by the hon. member for Charlotte. Hon. members of the government party who represent the Atlantic provinces-


Hugh John Flemming: May I
ask the hon. member a question?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When I am through I will accept any question. They have committed themselves to a capital projects program. They have said that they favour the immediate institution of an Atlantic capital projects program which will provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area. Now that they are given the opportunity in a bill which concerns primarily the Atlantic provinces they insist that no such capital fund provision should be included in this bill. They want to limit the power of this bill almost to inquiring and reporting. As has been said before in this debate, we have had inquiries in the Atlantic provinces and reports have been made to the government in connection with the needs of those provinces.
In referring to those needs I want to come back to the remarks made earlier by the minister when he was accusing members on this side of the house of not reading the bill and of not having seen it. We notice today that clause 5 had to be amended. The minister will surely not tell this committee that he has studied this bill, that he read this bill before it was introduced and at the same time allowed clause 5 to be presented as it was with a $3,000 salary for the chairman of the board. This is typical of the importance given to this board by the government. The minister further accused me, as the member for Gloucester county, of never showing any interest in the Atlantic provinces. I believe that on reflection, if the minister wants to go further back


Hugh John Flemming: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I said, in supporting applications of a special nature. That was my complaint about the hon. member, that he had not supported submissions for special treatment for the maritimes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I think that if the minister will go back to the records of this house since I have been a member, since I first sat in this house in November, 1953, he will realize that on many, many occasions when I was sitting on the government side, as well as since I have been sitting in the opposition, I have made remarks which were in the general interests of the Atlantic provinces and I have supported every attempt that has been made by governments, whether the previous or the present administration, having to do with the interests or the development of the Atlantic provinces.
I would further refer the minister to notice of motion No. 40 on the order paper in my name, which reads as follows:
Atlantic Development Board
That in the opinion of this house the government give urgent consideration to the advisability of establishing an Atlantic provinces capital investment fund for the purpose of financing large projects essential to further the economic development of primary industries in these provinces.
Today we have a chance to include such a provision in this bill and we are being turned down by the government.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important and integral part of this bill, dealing with the objects and powers of the Atlantic development board. We are concerned about the autonomy of this board and its independent power to inquire into, investigate and consider. I know the minister has elaborated on the fact that they have all this authority in clause 9 (1) (d) in that they are instructed to consider and report to the minister upon any other matters that in the opinion of the board may usefully be considered.
Our question is this. If this clause is intended to indicate that they have there the same authority as when a matter is referred to them by the minister, why is not the same terminology used as we find in paragraph (c), which says:
-with respect to particular measures or projects-
Not "matters":
-that may be referred to it by the minister, inquire into, assess and report-
Not "consider and report". In order to clear up this matter-and I am sure this is along the lines of what the minister intends -I move:
That subclause (1) (c) of clause 9 be amended by inserting after the words "by the minister" in the second line thereof the words "or which the board may itself determine", so that the amended subsection shall read as follows:
"(c) with respect to particular measures or projects that may be referred to it by the minister or which the board may itself determine, inquire into, assess and report"-
And so on, as in the original clause.
The Depuiy Chairman: The hon. member for Cape Breton South moves an amendment which reads as follows:
Amend subclause (1) (c) of clause 9 by inserting after the words "by the minister" in the second line thereof the words "or which the board may itself determine", so that the amended subsection shall read as follows:
"(c) with respect to particular measures or projects that may be referred to it by the minister or which the board may itself determine, inquire into, assess and report to the minister upon the feasibility of such measures or projects and the effect thereof in relation to the economy of the Atlantic region, and make recommendations to the minister with respect to any such measures or projects that in the opinion of the board would significantly contribute to the growth and development of the economy of the Atlantic region; and"

Atlantic Development Board


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Royal.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Mr. Chairman, surely this is nit-picking. You have to read the clause as a whole, and I think the amendment is barren of any suggestion that will improve it. Clause 9 is the heart of the bill. Of course the board can itself determine these things, if one reads the whole clause. I think that in construing statutes that is the way it is done: you read the whole thing without qualification. I hope the hon. member for Cape Breton South will have some more useful amendments than this nit-picking one.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I was going to raise pretty much the same point that has just been suggested by the hon. member for Royal, in that clause 9, subclause 1 commences:
The objects of the board are to inquire into and report to the minister upon measures and projects for fostering the economic growth and development of the Atlantic region of Canada-
Then there is paragraph (c) in connection with which the hon. member has just moved an amendment. In effect, it is repeating the same thing twice in one sentence, that is, that the objects of the board are to inquire into measures and projects. Then, in another part, according to this amendment, is the phrase "which the board may determine". The board has always had that power and I submit that this clutters up the bill with words which have no bearing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order, I think the observations made by the senior member for Halifax are not without merit, but if they are to be given the consequence he urges, the committee would have to take the same attitude with regard to (a) and (b) and the whole of (c). If it is worth while to draw attention to the various projects as is done in (a), (b) and (c)-and I think it is-then surely it ought to be worth while to spell out the particular amendments which hon. members opposite say are already implied in the operational part of the bill.


Donald MacInnis: I wish to call attention for a few moments to the attitude of the government with regard to these things. When an amendment is moved, it is either outside the scope of the bill or it is repeating what is already there. We are suggesting that something is needed to clarify this clause. If it is not needed then why was the same terminology not used? I suggest that the only way to clear this up is to indicate in the
[The Deputy Chairman.]
bill what is meant. We are not asking the government to spend any more money; we are simply asking them to adopt a more reasonable attitude.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On this particular amendment the mover is attempting to introduce into the bill a subclause or a phrase which would give the board power to determine certain projects or measures rather than that they should be determined by the minister. A similar circumstance arose when we were dealing with the bill to set up the national energy board and I well remember the argument which went on at that time on this point. In this bill, however, I notice that (d) in clause 9 gives the board power to do exactly what the hon. member suggests, namely to consider and recommend to the minister "any other matters which in the opinion of the board may usefully be considered by it". That is precisely what the hon. member is attempting to write into subparagraph (c) and it is obviously an unnecessary addition to the bill.


Mr. Ryan:: The minister has just said what I was about to say, namely that subclause (d) seems to cover the amendment.


Mr. Nicholson:: It had not been my intention to take any part in this debate-


Rémi Paul: I might point out that the hon. member has the floor to discuss only the amendment.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have followed the discussion with great interest and I am inclined to agree with the view that the powers are sufficiently wide for the board to do what is being suggested by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I do not see that anything would be gained by pursuing the point.
Amendment (Mr. Maclnnis) negatived: yeas, 48, nays 65.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to explain that if I had had the opportunity of voting I would have voted for the amendment. I did not vote because I was paired with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Rémi Paul: Shall clause 9
carry?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Before the clause carries I should like to take the time of the committee for five minutes in order to make a few remarks because, as my colleague the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton said, this is the heart of the bill. We in the maritimes are very interested in this measure because we think it holds promise of being of very great value to the future of the Atlantic provinces. I think it has the possibility of

being of more benefit to the maritime provinces than even the special grants which were passed by this government a few years ago.
Before 1 continue, however, I should like to digress for a moment in order to congratulate the hon. member for Charlotte on his remarks and on his sincere interest in the economic welfare of the maritime provinces. As a member of my clan I welcome him, although politically he may be a black sheep. I regret that his motion was ruled out of order as one unacceptable to the committee. But it seems to me that the measure of the benefit which this legislation will provide is not determined by the phraseology, as long as the general intention of the act is clear, as I believe it is. I think, rather, that the measure of its benefit will be determined by the calibre, industry and judgment of the board and by the ability of the nation, using this government and future governments, to convert the recommendations of the board into realities.
The Atlantic provinces are not underdeveloped areas in the sense in which that term is applied to some other areas of the world. The difficulty in the Atlantic provinces has been that for about 100 years they have been unable to compete in many industries with the larger economic concentration in central Canada. Many industries which were formerly established in the maritimes have gone out of existence because for one reason or another they were not viable. At the time of confederation, the Atlantic provinces were at least as highly developed as what was then Upper and Lower Canada. As time went by they were, apparently, not able to compete with the larger economic units which were developing to the west and one after another many of the industries of the maritimes passed away or were purchased and closed down by competitors in other parts of Canada because they were a nuisance.
This is not peculiar to the Atlantic provinces, because our whole country is in the same position relative to the much greater economic and industrial development of the United States. But as a country we can on occasion protect certain industries and allow them to continue to exist-perhaps our automobile industry is a case in point here-by means of special taxes, protective tariffs, and other measures which are not applicable to one part of the country, or which cannot readily be made applicable to one part of the country. It seems to me that the first and most important problem that the board will have to face is to determine what forces prevented the survival of the industries of the Atlantic provinces. The second problem will be to determine whether or not these forces still operate, and, if they do, whether they 27507-3-162
Atlantic Development Board, can be removed; or whether there are other industries which can be established in the maritimes which are immune to the forces I have just been speaking about.
I think there is a changed situation in the Atlantic provinces, and for a number of reasons. I think that the prospects are much brighter than they have been in recent years. There have been many discoveries of new and important natural resources there. Due to a better, more generous attitude on the part of the central government, there are more improved standards of education and other services in the maritimes than ever existed before. There are increasing demands for certain resources, and as time goes by these demands are bound to increase, with a consequent beneficial effect on many of the products of the maritimes, especially food products. I am happy to say-and this will apply to food produced either on the land or from the sea-that there is a continued and healthy development, although nothing very spectacular, in the fishing industry of the maritime provinces. There is a continuous and healthy growth there; and as time goes by I think there will be an increased growth in the agricultural segment of the maritime industries, because we in the maritimes, for some reason or another, do not produce our own needs in respect to a number of basic foods, such as meat and many other foods.
I do not think there is anything more I want to say at the present time. I should like to feel that the members of the opposition associate themselves with my view that we can be of the greatest benefit to the maritime provinces at this time by passing this legislation, rather than by talking about it for any great length of time. This is a new departure, a new venture. It may not be perfect. As my colleague has said, to a point it is experimental. It has to be tested to see what benefit will accrue from it. The bill can be amended at a future time if it is found to be ineffective in some way or other. My belief is that we should try to dispense with endless discussion which really does not do anything to improve-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: We should not try to make the bill better. That is what the minister is saying. It is puny and worthless.


John Angus MacLean: That may be a view held by some hon. members, but my view is that if that is the case it will be proven by time. But if we go on endlessly discussing this matter, both among members of the opposition and perhaps some hon. members in other parts of the house, like a bunch of medieval alchemists debating what is the best formula for the philosopher's stone, or something like that, then like they

Atlantic Development Board we shall talk for a long time and not make any progress. I suggest that we pass this measure and see if for once we can, without limiting anybody's right to debate, do something that is generally agreed will be beneficial to the Atlantic provinces.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken part in the debate so far because I have been away at meetings with the treasury board, off and on, but I would not want this bill to go through without my expressing at least the fact that I am naturally very much in support of it. I believe it will do a great deal of good to help the economy of the Atlantic provinces. Whatever opinions might have been expressed-and of course, people are entitled to express their own opinions about it-the fact remains that those who live in the Atlantic provinces and are conversant with the problems there, as well as the newspapers, boards of trade and every organization which is close to the problems of that area, have welcomed the bill and supported the proposal. I suggest, as my colleagues from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have said, that we should get ahead and get this bill through. Then, if there are imperfections-and there is no question that there are; no bill is perfect-they can be attended to later. Its success will depend on personalities and upon personnel. But I do say that this is a bill which will help to further the economy of the Atlantic provinces, an economy which has been tremendously furthered, Mr. Chairman, during the past five years. I am intrigued by these people who sat back for 22J years and did nothing for the Atlantic provinces, but who are now so anxious to to express their ideas about what should be done.
I am rather sick and tired of hearing the Atlantic provinces being referred to as a depressed area. The Atlantic provinces are no longer a depressed area. They may not have the same standard of prosperity as wealthy Ontario, or British Columbia, but there has been a mounting and a growing economy there, and the maritimes cannot be called a depressed area, whatever else it may be called. I believe that there is room for improvement. In the next five or ten years changes will take place-in trading relationships, the position on the east coast, the situation which may confront the United Kingdom should it join the common market, the situation with which we may be confronted in view of the Kennedy trade policy with relationship to the commonwealth. All these are matters which will have an impact on the economy of the maritimes, as it will

on the economy of the country as a whole, and it is advisable to have such a board. I know that the board will be competent, will be able, and will draft to it the very best intelligent thinking which can be concentrated on these problems. I think that the result will be a further advancement of, and a greater dealing with, the very complicated problems with which a constantly shrinking world is confronting us these days, and which will become more perplexing during the days, months and years ahead.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, may I contribute very briefly to this debate. I find it distasteful to be told by different members on the other side of this house that the only people who should comment on a bill dealing with a particular region are those people who reside in that region. Surely everybody in this committee has a right to speak on any bill which is to become a federal act, and I have a few observations to make with regard to this one. I should like to say that this bill on the whole represents an extension of an idea that has become very clear in the twenty fifth parliament even to an extent which was not as clear in the twenty fourth parliament, and that is that this government does not know how to govern.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Ross Matheson: I do not want to make my remarks an extended address, but if necessary I will be quite happy to do so. I think it will be established by a whole series of bills which have come and will come before this committee that what this government is virtually saying is: "We do not know what to do. For goodness sakes let us appoint somebody-a committee, a commission, a group, a board, a group of experts-to tell us what to do". We are grateful for the fact that two of the ministers from the maritimes have so recently made their contributions to this debate.
What does impress us, even those of us from Upper Canada, is the fact that Bill No. C-94, which provides so little in the way of personnel under clause 3, and so little income under clause 5, asks under its objects and powers so much. Perhaps everybody in Canada does not know what these objects and powers are. Think of the broad requirements under subclause (a) of clause 9:
-prepare on a systematic and comprehensive basis, and revise as required in the light of changing circumstances, an assessment of factors relevant to economic growth in the Atlantic region;
Subclause (b) is even more verbose in wording. We can summarize everything under subclause (a) and subclause (b) by a few words from the morning prayer of our Anglican

brethren when they confess: We have left undone those things which we ought to have done and we have done those things which we ought not to have done and there is no health in us; so please help us out. They are asking five people, one of whom is the chairman, to sit down and to tell them how to do something about the maritime region. It was on June 3, 1957, that the present Prime Minister spoke about the average real personal income of Canadians and said it had increased by more than 5 per cent between 1946 and 1955. He was speaking at Liverpool and he is reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. The national Conservative leader said that: The real personal income of maritime residents was dropping. Actually the only change effected in these last five years is that the real personal income of all Canadians is dropping very substantially and the real personal income of maritime residents has continued to drop.


An hon. Member:: Oh, fiddle.


Mr. Maiheson:: Someone on the government side says "oh fiddle". If necessary we will put on the order paper questions which will indicate clearly in statistics the extent of the drop. The fact is that there has been a drop, not only in production in Canada in these last five years-


Rémi Paul: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I think he is straying very far from the item we have under discussion, namely clause 9 of the bill. I think the hon. member might come back to the clause we are studying.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point you have raised, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. I wonder where Your Honour was when the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance were speaking, at which time they did not even mention the clause at all. They talked about 22 years when other people were in office. The hon. gentleman is talking about the powers of this board. Surely that is what we are on in clause 9.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman may I say that I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would wish to withdraw his initial sentence "I wonder where Your Honour was" when something was happening. This is criticism of the Chair, something which I think is unparliamentary.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He has that right.


Rémi Paul: If I made a mistake initially, I do not think I should make a second one. If the remarks of the ministers 27507-3-162i
Atlantic Development Board were not relevant to the clause under discussion, I do not think I should fall into error a second time.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I shall try not to wander from the clause under discussion. My comments are with respect to clause 9 which deals with the objects and powers of the board. I think that every member of this committee, and the chairman, will agree that this clause 9 admits of about as wide a range in debate as possible. But I do not wish to go wider than is necessary. However, I am pointing out the strange anomaly in this bill of a small committee, with virtually no teeth in it, no moneys behind it, asked virtually to do everything. We have really a situation of the knight-and I am thinking of the committee being the knight- who is asked to jump on his horse and ride off in all directions at the same time. That is exactly what the situation is here. If we look at subclause (a) of clause 9, we find the Atlantic development board is asked virtually to prepare an assessment of economic growth. Therefore, we are asking the committee to re-do what the member from Davenport did some years ago with a very complex and expensive staff of experts, namely to study growth.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I am not going to listen to the interruption. Actually it is no longer growth, it is decline. What we are asking for under subclause (a) is for the board to make a sophisticated and technically demanding assessment of growth with respect to the maritime areas. Then under subclause (b) this board is asked to tell the government what to do about it. I think this point must be made, as it is certainly clear to us, not from one bill alone but from the succession of bills that have come before us, that really what this government has been asking is for someone to tell them what to do about major problems.
I was happy to hear the observations a few moments ago of the Minister of Finance who unfortunately left the chamber after his short contribution. I think he and the Minister of Fisheries a few minutes ago really touched on the basis of this thing, namely that much of the problem of the maritimes since confederation has been poor planning from the standpoint of a national program. In essence, Bill No. C-94, purports to ask a small group of maritimers to meet together and to devise techniques and ways and means by which they can bail out a government from poor planning from the standpoint of the whole.

Private Bills
We in upper Canada feel that some of the things that have particularly hurt the mari-times, and I am thinking of the things that affect them tradewise, sometimes fiscal policy and sometimes monetary policy, but particularly trade and transportation have curiously been the things that have impeded and limited our growth as well, even those persons who live in central Canada. Sometimes too easily members from the west and from the mari-times assume that we in central Canada benefit by these obstructive techniques, so beloved by this particular administration as they were beloved by their predecessors. I think perhaps all I can say in conclusion is that we are asking a very small' group of people with Virtually no money and with no special powers, to do everything. This of course, is ridiculous and impossible. It is impossible to have a bill accomplish everything. Here we have a bill which is asking a board to do everything and when we ask them to do everything with no facilities, no resources, no special direction, no real objects and no real sense of purpose, we are really telling them to do nothing at all.


Rémi Paul: Shall the clause
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.
The Deputy Chairman. Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, the first item being private bills as found at page 19.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-8, respecting the trustee board of the Presbyterian church in Canada-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Paul in the chair.
On clause 1-Repeal.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Who is the sponsor of this bill?


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Ottawa West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member
proceed to give a general explanation of the purpose of this bill and the circumstances that caused its introduction?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Chairman, I gave an explanation at an earlier stage of the bill and I did not expect to have to repeat it at the committee stage. However, I am very happy and pleased to do so if the committee wishes.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the act under which the trustee board of the Presbyterian church in Canada is incorporated and to do so with particular reference to certain powers of investment that are given in the act. Those powers of investment were found to be deficient in one particular respect. The trustee board has the responsibility of administering pension funds, among other funds, and in the course of seeking to administer these pension funds it has been found that the act as it now reads provides that the board itself administers the funds and that it was impossible for the board to purchase insurance contracts or enter into agreements with insurance companies to administer these pensions. Likewise it was impossible for them to enter into an agreement with a trust company to administer the pensions or, indeed, to enter into a contract with the annuities branch of the federal government to purchase annuities for ministers and their families. That is the main reason why they are seeking an amendment.
The bill itself does certain other things. Section 15 of the act, having to do with powers of investment, limited the trustee board to the right to invest in those securities in which Canadian insurance companies may invest. The definition was so worded that it was not clear what Canadian insurance companies were involved. Therefore the section is being amended by paragraph (a) of clause 1 in order to restate that provision in such language as to make it clear that the trustee board may only invest its funds in those securities authorized under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. It makes it clear, in other words, what legislation is intended to govern. There was an obscurity in the section as it stood.
In addition, it is provided that the trustee board is not restricted as to the proportion of their total investments that they may invest in common stocks of companies that meet the requirements and provisions of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.
A part of clause 1, which will be paragraph (e) of section 15 in the act, gives the board the power to retain certain assets given to them, even though those assets may not come

within the requirements of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. As the law stands without this provision, it is required of the board that it immediately sell such assets and invest the funds under the provisions set out for the investment of the rest of its trust funds. That power to retain assets given to them in the form in which they were when they were given is asked for in the clause I have mentioned.
What will be paragraph (f) of section 15 of the act, if the bill passes, deals with the point I first mentioned and is the more important point.
Section 23 of the act, which is dealt with in clause 2 of the bill, merely deals with administrative matters. The name of the administrative body of the church was changed by the general assembly of the Presbyterian church in Canada since the act was passed and this clause is required merely to make it clear that the new name is the one intended in the act as it now stands. It is merely a change of terminology with regard to the name of the administrative board. If there are any questions members wish to ask I will be glad to answer them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is it correct to say, then, that these investments are largely made to provide pensions for the clergy and their dependants?


George James McIlraith: There are several trust funds held for other purposes. I cannot offhand give an inventory of the types of trust funds. However, in addition to pensions there would be funds for certain educational efforts within the church. They are general funds of the church as opposed to local funds of congregations in different areas.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, I take it that the members of the board have powers as trustees with respect to more than the payment of pensions to retired clergymen. However, I am interested in the latter point. Has the hon. member for Ottawa West any information as to the minimum pension paid from these funds to a retired minister of the Presbyterian church? I know that we are called upon to look into similar matters in connection with Canadian National Railways and some other funds. I also believe that there may be some gratuity provided under these funds for the benefit of Indians throughout the country. Is that so?


George James McIlraith: Indians?


William Moore Benidickson: I am thinking in terms of the obligation of the Presbyterian church to administer Indian schools. Is this in any way related to these funds or is it the view
Private Bills
that the government reimburses the Presbyterian church adequately for their custodial care of Indian pupils in residential schools?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, to deal with the point raised as to other trust funds; there are several trust funds other than the pension fund. The board is charged with the responsibility of administering all the general trust funds of the church and the act is applicable to all such funds held in trust. I mentioned the pension fund first to indicate that it was because of the difficulty experienced in the administration of that fund that the board has come to parliament asking for an amendment. That is what caused the bill to be presented.
As to the second point raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, I regret to say that I do not know whether any funds are held by the trustees for the benefit of Indians. I am not able to answer that question.


William Moore Benidickson: My point is that the churches have the administration of Indian residential schools and personally I have been concerned with respect to whether or not the government covers their operating costs.
I know the Presbyterian church has done a very noteworthy job with respect to the education of Indian children but I sometimes wonder whether the government carries the main burden or whether, through the contributions of their parishioners, the church does something for the education of Indian children in the residential schools administered by them. I rather doubt it. I rather think the government does the most part of that, and I just want to ask this question about it.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I cannot give that information. I regret very much not being able to give it.


Mr. Barneli:: I have been looking at the rather long and somewhat complicated paragraph (f) of clause 1, and I am interested in the part which commences about line 31. If I understand the situation correctly, power is being granted in respect of the establishment of pension funds, and reference is made authorizing arrangements to be entered into with one or more insurance or trust companies authorized under the laws of Canada and the laws of any province of Canada to transact business in Canada. Then it goes on to say:
wmi0rii tir [DOT] r* Majesty in right of Canada, or with Iler Majesty m right of any province of Canada, or otherwise;
It then goes on to indicate that any such plan may be varied or terminated under the jurisdiction of the various authorities within the church. I am wondering if that particular

Private Bills
part of the paragraph has been drafted in such a way that it might fit into any national all inclusive pension plan which might be established at a later date. I am interested to know whether that might have been a consideration in the minds of the people in the church who were interested in seeing this bill brought before the house.


George James McIlraith: I think, to the extent I am able to answer that question, the answer is that the trustees found they were having to administer in detail each individual pension granted, and after examination into this subject the proposal arose that they enter into a contract with a life insurance company and let the life insurance company administer certain of these pensions.
When that was being done they also examined the activities of the government annuities branch where you can use lump sums and buy government annuities. That was the thinking behind this. This was not drafted by me. It was drafted by one of considerable experience in these matters and I have no doubt the possibility of government pension funds being created was considered, and that such a contract could be entered into with an agency like that as well as with the annuities branch.
Then in the other place the words "trust companies" were added. It was pointed out that the clause did not provide for the trustee board entering into a contract with a trust company to administer these pensions. That was not in the original draft as submitted to the Senate, and the words "trust companies" were added there.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In relation to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Ottawa West I would like to say I am very glad to hear his explanation of this point, and I would like to compliment the people in charge of this trust fund for looking forward to the day when we shall have a comprehensive national pension plan and for making provision that their particular plan can be fitted into it when the time comes. I hope the time will not be too far distant when there will be pension plans to embrace all Canadians.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I was once an adherent of the Presbyterian church, of which I am proud. I am very pleased to see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his seat in the chamber. I wish to ask what obligation there is on the part of the government of Canada for pensions relating to ordained ministers of this church, or any other church who, up to the time of their retirement, are devoted to education in Indian affairs and Eskimo affairs? Does the pension

obligation go to the government of Canada or is it maintained by the various churches of Canada?


Mr. Scott:: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the bill limits the investments to those in which life insurance companies invest. Is there any particular reason for the limitation, or was there a feeling that it might be advantageous to extend the scope of the investing powers to go beyond those to which life insurance companies are restricted?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Chairman. It was not intended to go beyond that scope. The legislation dealing with the power of life insurance companies to invest their funds was dealt with by this house some few years ago and is fairly well up to date. The current practice in parliament has been, in cases of incorporation of various types of religious bodies, to give them powers to invest in the investments authorized for funds covered by the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. That provision has been very carefully worked out by parliament, and this clause in that respect follows that practice in dealing with all these similar bills that have come before the House of Commons except, so far as I know, with one exception in recent years.
There is one change here in the limitation applicable to an insurance company, in that it can only invest 20 per cent of its funds in common stocks in the class of companies insurance companies are authorized to invest in. That is not made applicable in this clause. That limitation is taken out, the limitation as to the proportion that may be invested in common stock, but that is the only change.


Reid Scott: I wonder if the sponsor of the bill could outline the investment policy to the house. Is it decided by the trustee board of the Presbyterian church or is it decided by the life insurance companies which the church retains to manage the fund?


George James McIlraith: The trustee board of the church is charged with that responsibility and it determines the investment policy exclusively. The life insurance company has nothing to do with determining the policy of investment of funds.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Could the hon. member tell us how the persons who act as trustees on the trustee board are elected or appointed? How are they chosen for the offices they hold on the trustee board?


George James McIlraith: The governing body of the Presbyterian church in Canada is, of course, the general assembly of the church, and incidentally the name given to the church is to be found curiously enough in the 1939 act

respecting the United Church of Canada. But be that as it may, the trustee board is the incorporated body and in a moment I can give the hon. member the precise reference. In any event, it is appointed by the general assembly and is made a corporate body under the act. The act is chapter 64 of the 1939 statutes.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I did observe that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was otherwise occupied when I raised a question. I am sure he will answer me by letter. I simply want to reaffirm that my question relates to the pension duality, shall I say, of ordained people who might be entitled to certain privileges under a bill of this kind if they have perhaps devoted a certain part of their lives to teaching Indians or Eskimos. I am concerned about that. I would like to know the responsibility of the state and the responsibility of the church; not only this church, but any other church.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River for not observing that he was asking me a question. I was endeavouring to concentrate on another matter. I will look at Hansard and if there is an appropriate reply I will certainly send it to him at the first opportunity.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the sponsor of the bill could tell us a little bit about this investment fund, its size, scope and the nature of its investments. I think the committee would be very interested in hearing about the fund. If the hon. member has any information I would be very glad to receive it from him.


Mr.   Mc@: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have not that information. We had a member of the trustee board and a member of the pension committee before the miscellaneous private bills committee which dealt with this bill at the standing committee stage. I am sorry that question was not asked there and I regret that I do not have this information.


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

Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the unanimous consent of the house to giving precedence to item
Private Bills
No. 11, a bill standing in my name? I would ask that it be taken before we proceed with item No. 2. It is a relatively short bill and will not take up too much time of the committee.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could I associate myself with the hon. member who has just spoken and asked that item No. 12, which is a very short bill to the same effect, also be given precedence ahead of the other divorce bills.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member said "other divorce bills". I do not believe his bill is a divorce bill. I think he means "before the divorce bills".


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. (Translation):


Mr. David Ouellei (Drummond-Arthabaska):: Mr. Speaker, did I understand well? I am asking this merely because I did not hear very well. Is Bill S-12 the one to be put before the house?


Mr. Speaker:: No. The house would be asked to consider Bills S-ll and S-14.
As requested by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), we shall first consider Bill S-ll.
(Text):
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) asks the unanimous consent of the house that Bill No. S-ll be considered in committee of the whole prior to items 2 to 10. Has the hon. member unanimous consent? Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The house in committee on Bill No. S-ll, respecting the Sovereign Life Assurance Company of Canada-Mr. Mandziuk-Mr. Paul in the chair.
On clause 1-Name in French.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I see that the hon. member for Marquette is the sponsor of this bill. Has this bill any relationship to the taking over of this company by the small loans finance company known I believe as I.A.C.?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member I think a short statement would clarify the matter, avoid too many questions and save the time of the committee. The only intention of this bill is to give the Sovereign Life Assurance Company of Canada a French name in accordance with the letters of incorporation. The French name would be La Souveraine, compagnie d'assurance-vie du Canada. It does not change the obligations

Private Bills
of the company at all. The committee will notice these words under item 11 on the order paper:
Text of amendment printed in Votes and Proceedings of December 6 at pages 365-6.
There was an amendment after the bill passed the other place. When it was before the banking and commerce committee an amendment was suggested and passed, namely that the company could use either the English name or the French version of the name, and it could be sued in either name. That is the whole essence of this bill.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his reply. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but is this the Winnipeg company that was recently bought out by one of the small loans finance companies, as I call them?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am not aware of this, Mr. Chairman. I know that the Sovereign Life Assurance Company's head office is in Winnipeg. I also have information that about one third of its business is done in the province of Quebec. It is a strong company financially. But I am not aware of any such transaction at all.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, in supporting this bill I am given an opportunity to raise a point I would like to put forward. The bill is quite clear in that it is simply providing that the company, which was incorporated with an English name, may use a French translation or a French version of its name. It is one of several bills to this effect that we have had with increasing frequency these last few years. There were earlier ones, but they are now becoming more and more frequent. What I would like to point out ^ is a deficiency in the Companies Act, the legislation which deals with companies incorpo-porated by letters patent. There is no provision in the Companies Act to permit companies incorporated under that act to use a translation of their names. If they take a name in French they cannot use the English translation of it; if they take a name in English they cannot use the French translation of it.
It seems to me that this presents a difficulty, and I say this on the basis of some experience of cases of companies doing business in all parts of Canada. They find that in the part of Canada which is larger geographically a name in English is sufficient, but it is inappropriate and unsatisfactory for use in those parts of the country where French is the language principally spoken. It is a practical problem of considerable concern to many of the companies which are

incorporated by letters patent. I hope this point will receive attention by the government, and that the simple amending legislation necessary may be brought forward in order that these companies shall have the same right as is granted to those companies which are incorporated by special act.


William Moore Benidickson: I would simply address one question to the sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for Marquette. If I was right in my surmise that this company will be a subsidiary of one of the large small loans companies-I think it is I.A.C.-which lend at high rates of interest, could he inform the committee whether he knows of any precedent, any case of another company taking over a life insurance company and to what extent this would involve either those who are insured by such a company or the normal rights of parliament with respect to lending under the Small Businesses Loans Act?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I can understand the anxiety of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. We would all be most anxious about a situation such as he describes. But as far I am instructed this is simply a life insurance company, and that is all I know. I have no other information on the subject. If I had, I would be only too glad to divulge it to the committee.


Reid Scott: I wonder if the sponsor of this bill can tell us anything about this life insurance company. I understand that since this bill went into committee the Sovereign Life Insurance Company has been taken over by the I.A.C. which is owned by the Murchison brothers of Texas, a couple of American multi-millionaires. This is another example of the increasing tendency of Canadian assets to pass out of Canadian control. I say this because this life insurance company is now controlled from outside our borders.
I wonder if the hon. member for Marquette can tell us something about this company, for example its size, the nature of its assets, how much more of Canada has been taken from us by this take-over of a Canadian life insurance company.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am afraid I have not the information asked for.


Thomas Rodney Berger: May I say I am amazed that the sponsor of the bill is unable to inform the committee about the operations of this company. He is unable to throw light on events about which most members, I believe, have some knowledge, namely, that this life insurance company-


Rémi Paul: Order. I think the hon. member is asking the sponsor of the

bill for information about the general activities of the company. We are now considering clause 1 of the bill which seeks to change the name of the company, and the discussion is limited by the terms of this clause. I think the hon. member cannot ask for any comments on the activities of the company in general.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I appreciate the cogency of the remarks which have just fallen from you, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the propriety of the observations I had been making.
Let me deal with clause 1, as I was about to do before you intervened. It is designed to enable this company to use a French version of its name. The name of the company is the Sovereign Life Assurance Company of Canada, and the company now seeks to adopt the name La Souveraine compagnie d'assu-rance-vie du Canada. I am anxious to know whether this envisages an extension of the company's operations in the province of Quebec and other parts of Canada where the French language is spoken. I think members of the committee are entitled to know whether such an extension is contemplated.
With this issue before the committee, the committee is again concerned with the question of the ownership of this company. Is this company, which is, apparently, seeking to extend its operations into those parts of Canada where French is spoken, in fact a company which is now wholly owned and controlled by United States interests? This parliament has already had in recent years one unfortunate experience with Texas millionaires and I think the committee is entitled to have this information. I believe that hon. members opposite, many of whom represent the province of Quebec, would also appreciate knowing a little more about this company before agreeing to give it an opportunity to use another name to obtain premiums from French speaking Canadians which, apparently, will soon find their way into the hands of the Industrial Acceptance Corporation and be lent out again, probably to the same French speaking Canadians, at exorbitant rates of interest.
This is the matter I was seeking to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, and to the attention of members of this committee. I believe we should have additional information on this subject from the sponsor of the bill. The take-over of this life insurance company by a United States organization is a comparatively recent development and I think the committee is entitled to some information about that development. I urge the hon. member for Marquette to seek leave of the committee to have this debate adjourned so that he may come back at a later
Private Bills
date when he is in a position to provide the house with this information. I am sure hon. members who come from French speaking parts of Canada will agree with the suggestion.


Rémi Paul: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I ask him to read the explanatory note in the bill. The sole purpose of this bill is to permit a French version of the name of the company and I think the hon. member is out of order when he discusses the policy of the company. I am sure the hon. member will agree that his remarks are out of order.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to give this company a French name. Does it not automatically follow that the purpose of this would be to enable them to practise in French-Cana-dian communities? I think that is perfectly in line with what the hon. member from Vancouver-Burrard said, that the very purpose of the bill is to make it more attractive to French-Canadian communities. I think the remarks of the hon. member are very applicable on this point.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, I have already stated that according to the information I have this company is doing business in Quebec to the extent of about one third of its total business. As to the other questions which have been asked, I might say that I did not anticipate them because I did not think there was an issue on this bill, as the chairman has already intimated.
(Translation):


David Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, several insurance companies have also asked to be designated under a French name lately. It seems to be the fashion, and everybody knows why.
I am familiar with that insurance company. It is undoubtedly an excellent company which has been in business for quite a long while. In my opinion, it wants a French name to be able to sell its policies to French Canadians by leading them to believe that it is a French-Canadian company.
If, as the N.D.P. member stated a moment ago, it is true that insurance companies are trying to find a way to catch the French Canadians of the province of Quebec off their guard, I may well oppose myself to the giving of a French name to those companies before long, because I feel that this English insurance company is looking for an indirect way of doing just that.
2S54

Private Bills
I was not against the bill concerning the Merit Insurance Company which was before the house last week. In fact, that piece of legislation purported to do the same thing, that is to give a French name to the Merit Insurance Company, which is controlled by Industrial Acceptance Corporation.
In my opinion, the mover has not given the house sufficient information concerning this bill, because I know that the loans granted by Industrial Acceptance Corporation are insured by that company. In fact, the life of the borrower is insured so that, in case of death, the debt is paid and the family is free of any liability.
Industrial Acceptance Corporation got control of that company to provide insurance itself instead of depending upon someone else for that.
Since there was no opposition to the bills previously submitted, I do not intend to oppose this one, because I believe it would be unfair to the company which, by the way, is a rather good one. However, I take this opportunity to say to the house that should such practice continue, I shall voice opposition the next time, and give my reasons therefor.
(Text):


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to rise to challenge, in a way, your suggestion as to the relevance of discussion..This bill does refer, of course, only to the question of adding a French version to the name of the Sovereign Life Assurance Company of Canada. I would suggest to you and to the committee, although I was not sure of my position until some friends told me I was right, that I.A.C. are the people who have made a successful bid to acquire this company. I care not about that, but I think our attitude as to the principle of adding a French name and of doing business in French-Canadian communities is very pertinent to the discussion before us.
With regard to the other questions which I raised, the sponsor of the bill is doing his best but he does not seem to be very well informed. I would ask him if he knows whether there is any precedent in Canada for a finance company having a good treasury taking over a life insurance company. I rather deplore the use of the liquid assets of one company to make it possible for smother company to gobble up many others. I am serious about this because I think that is involved here. I think there is involved the sole purpose of the bill, as to whether or not their attitude to the French language and to the French version would be important. I understand that this company cannot exist- at least they cannot amend-without our approval. Our predecessors incorporated them.
[Mr. Ouellet.l
I think a trend along a certain line should be of notice to this committee, and I would ask the sponsor if he knows whether any other company in Canada has bought out a life insurance company in Canada.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, lest anything I said earlier should be misunderstood by any hon. member, let me say at once that, in suggesting to the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill that it might be advisable that debate on this bill should be suspended and that he should report back to the house at a later date on some of the issues which have been raised, I did not intend to criticize, or to imply any criticism of the manner in which he has brought the bill before this committee. I think all hon. members know that the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill has won the admiration of the house for the way in which he has handled the bills which have been presented by him during this parliament. I should also make it clear that the members of this party do not oppose in principle the use by a corporation carrying on business in this country of a French version of its name. I think that all of us in this party feel that encouragement in the use of the French language by all English speaking Canadians, whether they be corporate or principal entities, is an excellent thing. I think all members of this party support the idea of encouraging bilingualism in this country so far as that can be done. But we were prompted to question the advisability of proceeding at once with this bill because of the fact that the use of a French version of the name of this company indicated that the company was extending its operations to other parts of Canada where French is spoken.
I understood from the sponsor of the bill that this company has in fact been operating in the province of Quebec for some years, and that one third of its business arises from that province. We can conclude from this only that the company has been operating in that province under the name of the Sovereign Life Assurance Company of Canada, a name which presumably has so far served it well, and one wonders whether the haste with which it has now come forward seeking to use a French version of its name is attributable to the recent development, of which hon. members have spoken, which indicates that the company in question has been taken over by United States investors. We are most concerned about this matter and we feel that all hon. members of the House of Commons should be concerned about it,

including-and I say this with great respect to him-the hon. member who sponsored the biU.
Once again I urge the hon. member to ask leave of the house to have this debate stand so that he may obtain further information about the status of this company, the reasons why it is seeking to adopt this French version of its name and so that he can inform the house on the question of the ownership of this company, who is going to control the company and all of the other matters about which I am sure all hon. members are most anxious to hear.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me-and I may say I am not referring to the latter remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken-that we are getting away from the bill altogether. The question of the ownership and the regulation of Canadian insurance companies is dealt with by legislation coming under the control of this parliament. It is that legislation which should be amended if any amendment is required. However, in an attempt to meet the points of view of hon. members who are speaking about the ownership of the company, I would say that the transfer of ownership, the creating of profits and the taking out of profits from this company is another matter and does not have to do with this bill. I have not looked at the act of incorporation of this particular company, Mr. Chairman; however, if one looks at the insurance company legislation he will find that the acts of incorporation of most companies are very short, as the control is provided through the general legislation- and it is quite rigid control as to investment policies, the supervision of investments, the actuarial soundness of rates and all that sort of thing. Hence that part of the debate today, it seems to me, is irrelevant to the point before the Chair.
Referring to what I consider to be the matter before the committee may I say that this company is one that has been operating extensively, as I understand it, for some 50 or 60 years in the province of Quebec, as it has in other parts of Canada. Surely this committee is not going to deny to that company, with a great number of policyholders in an area where only the French language is spoken, the right to use the French language or the French version of its name. I speak on this subject with some interest, as over the last number of years or for quite some time I have been concerned with the inadequacy of our provision for granting the two versions of the name to companies being incorporated. It can be done by special act, but that method is not satisfactory. Most
Private Bills
companies start as relatively small organizations in one part of the country or the other. It cannot be done by letters patent as the Companies Act does not provide any method for doing it.
However, I hope that the committee here will not be diverted from the point at issue and will not refuse this right to a company which has extensive customers or policyholders in a section of the country where the residents speak only a language different from that used in the name of the company in the act of incorporation. I would hope that this committee would permit them to have that right.
It seems to me that three separate points are being mixed here. I believe the right being sought in the bill is something that should be granted, quite regardless of the view held on the other points raised. That view is dealt with in legislation by parliament and administered by the department of insurance under the superintendent of insurance.
(Translation):


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, I was very happy to hear the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) praise bilingualism. I see his point perfectly. I simply regret that I did not have an opportunity to rise earlier because I am afraid the clock will put an end to my remarks.
We know-and we are the first to request it-that companies and other agencies, particularly government agencies, should use French in addition to English.
As a preamble to the explanation to the bill, it was assumed that the company did over one third of its annual business in the province of Quebec. The company has the right to do that in accordance with its charter.
However, I wonder if the federal government is not slightly trespassing on the privilege of a provincial government when it gives this company a French name.
As the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Ouellet) said a moment ago, he had himself agreed to a French name for a company which had an English name before.
But since there is now a tendency to apply for these changes more often-and the companies are to be commended for it-I wonder whether we should not leave it to the provincial government of Quebec to issue letters patent or a corporate name for the province,

Atlantic Development Board so that the province itself may set whatever requirements it feels appropriate for a company, since the province in question is obviously more aware of the situation than we are.
We have heard the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) say that he has no information on the operations of the company. Perhaps a provincial government would be informed and could set certain requirements before granting a French name to a company which only had an English name before.
Since these applications might become very numerous, for a very good purpose probably, I submit that, as the province of Quebec is the most concerned in this, the federal government should not decide on the advisability of granting a federal charter enabling this company to use the same name throughout Canada. As the hon. member for Marquette suggests, this company insists on having a French name because it does one third of its business in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock? (Text):


George James McIlraith: Quebec has no jurisdiction.
Clause 1 stands.
Progress reported.
(Translation):



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-94, to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board-Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton)- Mr. Paul in the chair.
On clause 9-Objects and purposes.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
(Text):

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 9 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. There is just one observation I wish to make before the clause carries. I am prompted to make it by the observation of the Minister of Fisheries. I am sorry he is not in the chamber at the moment, but no doubt he will be here in a minute. He expressed regret that the speech

of the hon. member for Charlotte should have been marred by the ruling out of order of his amendment. I hope Your Honour is not becoming apprehensive because I am not going to raise the question at all. All I am going to say is that the hon. member for Charlotte was trying to help this government to implement its promises of five years ago. It is extraordinary that the Minister of Fisheries should feel that any promise made by the government five years ago would be ruled out of order by the Chair.


Donald MacInnis: Once again, it is not our intention to try and hold up the committee, but earlier today the minister indicated to us that it was most desirable this board be not shackled by government control or direction. He indicated that he hoped it would have a certain degree of autonomy and be able to act on its own. In so far as this clause is concerned, we are very anxious that the board be given the power to make sure the people of the Atlantic provinces and the people of Canada in general know what they are studying, what they have decided and what they have recommended.
I suggest that this situation is not completely covered by the usual type of annual report we get from these boards and to which reference is made in clause 19 of this bill. We should like to suggest, therefore, that every report and every conclusive recommendation of this board be made public so that the people will know what the board is doing, how quickly they are making progress and the type of thing they are presenting to the government. I therefore move that clause 9 be amended my adding thereto the following new subsection to be called subsection (3):
(3) The minister shall lay before parliament within fifteen days after the receipt thereof every report and recommendation submitted by the board to him or, in parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.


Gordon Campbell Chown: At the outset, the hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to clause 19, and without ruling on the admissibility of this amendment I wonder if it would not have more application as an amendment to clause 19 rather than to this particular clause. Perhaps the hon. member would help the Chair by giving me his comments in that regard. We can then consider the admissibility of the amendment itself.


Donald MacInnis: Very briefly, I may say clause 19 deals with the typical annual report that is made by any board or organization operating under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. In this particular clause 9 we are dealing with the objects and powers of the board, and within the scope of those

powers we are most concerned that the minister be given the opportunity he indicated he is anxious to obtain, that is a certain degree of independence, a certain degree of autonomy for this board. If the minister is as anxious for concrete action on the part of this board as he has indicated so far to the house, if he is in fact so desirous that they be independent, then surely he would have no objection to this board making public the recommendations that they want this government to act upon. I believe it is in the interests of the people of this area that the government be not permitted to put the responsibility for economic difficulties in the Atlantic provinces on some board. In other words, we are suggesting that this should not be another continuing permanent royal commission but rather an active board that has, in fact, some autonomy and that is prepared to report to the people on their findings. If this amendment were accepted, we would have a much more responsible board and perhaps a much more active government.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Obviously you are most perceptive, Mr. Chairman. I do not see what the few remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South had to do with your question about relevancy. Surely clause 19 is the clause, if any amendment is to be accepted relating to reporting. It should come later in the bill. Personally, I think this amendment is quite inappropriate and out of order.
If we are discussing, however, the merits of the amendment, it seems to me that the hon. member for Cape Breton South is unduly suspicious. Clause 19 provides for a statement relating to the activities of the board for the fiscal year and how the statement is to be laid before parliament. It seems to me this provision is quite adequate and the public interest will be best served by sticking to the clause now before us.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the issue you have raised as to the relevant portion of the bill where the amendment should be introduced, I would with respect suggest that if you read paragraphs (c) and (d) of clause 9 it is made quite clear under these provisions that there will be a continuing number of reports given to the minister by the board on particular measures and projects, and on any other matters that the board considers important, and that throughout the years there will be quite a number of reports submitted from time to time. These do not in any way envisage the annual report, which is covered by clause 19 of the bill.
Keeping all that in view, then surely this is the only place in the bill where the hon. member for Cape Breton South can move an
Atlantic Development Board amendment of this kind so that these reports that are submitted to the minister will be made available to the public and to the House of Commons, where they can be reviewed and discussed. If the amendment is not relevant here, then I do not know on what portion of the bill it could be relevant. We are not particularly interested in having the annual report made available, but we are interested in all the reports which will be made from time to time by the board, in order that parliament and the people of Canada can see them. It seems to me this is obviously the place for an amendment of this kind.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether you have ruled the amendment in order or not on this clause, but I have a point I wish to make regarding the amendment, whether it is moved on clause 9 or not, and it concerns the simple rule of confidentiality. I feel that to a certain degree the recommendations of this board should be considered as confidential. If the recommendations are to be of any use they must be frank, and for them to be reported in a full manner, as suggested by the amendment, would destroy their full value. I suggest that this is a serious argument against the amendment, whether it be in order on this clause or on a later clause.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is Your Honour still
troubled by whether the amendment is in order or not?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am quite prepared to hear additional argument.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It appears to me that what the hon. gentleman is seeking to do is entirely different from what is sought in clause 19, which is the normal type of clause put into these bills providing for an annual report to parliament. The hon. gentleman is seeking to do exactly what is done by "Neddy" in the United Kingdom, and in many other cases, to have the reports on these economic proposals made public. It is an entirely different thing; and unless the government takes the view that what it is seeking to do is to get a group of confidential advisors to itself, of whose work the public will have no knowledge, then there can be little objection to the amendment. But if the government says that is the principle of the bill, then that is not exactly what most of us thought it was.
It seems to me that, unless it can be shown that this is contrary to the principle of the bill, then there is no difficulty in saying these particular reports should be made public. However, I would make a suggestion, if I might, to the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I think that the government would

Atlantic Development Board have a pretty good case for objecting to making the reports public under paragraph (c). It seems to me that if this board is going to be a really useful board then the government ought to be able to ask the board for confidential advice and be able to keep that confidential when the minister himself initiates the query. It also seems to me that if the hon. member could modify his amendment so as to have the reports made public only under the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b)-paragraph (a) is the one which states "prepare on a systematic and comprehensive basis," and that is a matter of public interest, while paragraph (b) is the one which states "keep under constant review appropriate methods of furthering the sound economic development of the Atlantic region"-then it would be a good thing to have public debate about reports made under those two paragraphs.
The same thing appears true about paragraph (d) which concerns something that is initiated by the board. But as one who has experience of government I do think that if the board is to be useful the minister should also be able to get confidential advice from it under the provisions of paragraph (c). If the hon. gentleman would be prepared to modify his amendment in that sense, it might be acceptable even to the government, because I am sure the government wants this board to be useful to the public as well as to the government. I can easily see why it would not want the reports made public under paragraph (c), where it is considering whether it should initiate a particular project and wanted confidential advice. I think it would be in the public interest for the government to have that confidential advice, and I respectfully offer this suggestion to the hon. member and to the minister.


Hugh John Flemming: I am
quite prepared to accept the general proposition in this particular instance that, in spite of the political tenor of his remarks, the hon. member for Cape Breton South was anxious to have this additional information and could see no particular reason why it should not be made general information and be of benefit to the board in its activities. However, I want to direct his attention to the fact that I have reason to believe that this matter was quite carefully discussed and the decision arrived at was that in this competitive day and age, and with the competition that exists today not only between industries but between countries, that if a company in a certain business was considering the establishment of a plant it would be somewhat restrained and would possibly
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
make an adverse decision with respect to locating in a certain district if it were of the opinion that the board's reports and recommendations were going to be made public knowledge within 15 days. I think that is a very important point.
Many hon. members have risen to their feet to make comments from day to day on this bill, and they have expressed some misgivings that the board would be hampered in its activity. I agree there is always a danger in that, and I consider that this amendment would definitely be detrimental to the success which might accompany the efforts of the board to secure new industries for this region. It is on that basis, and on no other, that I tell the hon. member for Cape Breton South I have great hesitation in accepting his amendment in its present form.
There is also the question of the feasibility of industry. Whether it is feasible to establish an industry in a certain locality depends on a variety of factors, and if those factors are to be made public so that competitors can hear of them, that would bring about a degree of restraint and perhaps even a definite refusal to consider the establishment of industry in that particular locality. I offer that comment with the greatest amount of conviction possible on a broad basis, and having in mind the interests of the success of the board. I feel the amendment would not be helpful; in fact it would be quite the opposite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit me to ask him a question? Would he think that would apply to paragraph (a)? I am very much impressed by what the minister has just said with respect to paragraph (b), and I have already accepted his contention with respect to paragraph (c); but concerning paragraph (aj which deals with the "comprehensive basis" it seems to me it might be a very useful thing to have those assessments made public. So that it does not deal with the location; it is the general assessment of the area from time to time. It seems to me it would accomplish what the minister and I and the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and indeed every member of the house, would like to see; that is, more attention given by everyone to the broad factors relating to the development of the region. If that could be done, Mr. Chairman, it might perhaps be a compromise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies on that question and while he is giving consideration to the problem may I say that I appreciate the suggestion of the hon. member from Bonavista-Twillingate that some of this information would be of great

value to the general public. Of course it would. But surely it is within the competence of the board to determine that, and if it is doing the work which we expect of it, and I am sure it will, it will want to make public various factors concerning the projects, development or prospects in the Atlantic provinces.
This is my thought at this time. It is hardly necessary to write into an act that it shall be mandatory for a board to publish the assessment of the factors it may take into account during the course of its investigation. If this becomes a practice we would be asking all government boards, under compulsion, to make public a great number of matters which may not necessarily be required at the time. I would think it could better be left to the discretion of the board and then, if that is not satisfactory, there is the time honoured method in parliament of asking the minister of the department to give the information to parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We would be told it is a privileged document.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is opportunity to question the minister on these matters during the passage of estimates, and there is always the method of a motion for the production of papers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate gave the house the information a year or so ago as to how to get that dealt with by way of debate, and it was on his instruction that we wrote into the rules a method to deal with debate on a motion for the production of papers. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, all these methods are available without actually writing into an act instructions to a board to publish something other than what is normally published, an annual report to be laid before parliament and the financial statement. That to my way of thinking is satisfactory, without this addition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister's argument is that discretion should be left to the board as to whether to make public its reports. I take it that is his argument. Further, he argues that it would be unwise to compel a board to make public its reports and surveys. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this particular clause removes from the board any discretion in respect of making public its reports, because the clause reads:
The objects of the board are to inquire into and report to the minister-
The board is not authorized to report to anybody but the minister. If that is the case,
Atlantic Development Board Mr. Chairman, surely it has no discretion as to whether it can make public its reports, because it can only report to the minister and the only person who would have any discretion as to whether the reports should be made public would be the minister.
Amendment (Mr. Maclnnis) negatived: Yeas, 6; nays, 108.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 9 carry?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, during the discussion on the first clause of this bill I mentioned a project that I felt related the difficulties that I felt would occur with the compiling of statistics and figures. Under clause 9, dealing with the objects and powers of the board, I wish to mention in greater detail this project which I feel should have top priority. I proposed that priority should be given to a project to investigate fully the effect of winter navigation in the lower St. Lawrence on the ports of Saint John and Halifax. The exact figures-and this is the difficulty, Mr. Chairman-of destination and origin of traffic in the lower St. Lawrence would demonstrate the difference between legitimate St. Lawrence traffic and that business which would have come to our maritime ports originally but now flows through the St. Lawrence in winter.
There is serious misapprehension, as many have said, in the maritimes that all St. Lawrence winter shipping now appears to be business that would otherwise come to the ports of Saint John and Halifax. I will give an example. I suggest that European commodities arriving at, say, the port of Quebec by sea during the winter season and destined for a city such as Winnipeg would be business that might have landed at Saint John or Halifax. On the other hand, coastwise traffic in the lower St. Lawrence between the cities of Quebec and Seven Islands, or even overseas shipments in and out of these ports alone, that would not ordinarily be made until spring could not be expected to use maritime ports and would not be legitimate traffic for maritime ports under present circumstances. This would be the differentiation and it is the question that I feel is important to consider under this clause dealing with the powers given to this board. It is true that a study is now under way in the port of Saint John regarding traffic there,

Atlantic Development Board but while this will be of some assistance with regard to the transshipments that go through the port, it does not deal with the heart of the problem, which is so important to our maritime ports.
Other matters that might be considered in this top priority project would be water and insurance rates. They could be considered because there is a growing fear that rates, be they water or insurance, are being equalized over all eastern ports so that the costs of ice hazards are now spread over every one of the eastern Atlantic ports. This means, in effect, that Halifax and Saint John are paying, as it were, for protection against the dangers of ice floes in the St. Lawrence. There is also a need for an assessment of the charges which have been made with respect to the use of government icebreakers, paid for by the Canadian taxpayer, to open up the St. Lawrence in winter to our detriment. The danger of flooding is often given as an excuse and I think an advisory committee appointed by the board could declare which areas should have protection from flooding afforded by icebreakers in a legitimate way. If this were done, the criticism would be removed. After the statistics have been compiled, they would, together with existing information, be a logical source of material upon which an advisory committee appointed by this board might reach its conclusions.
I am putting forward this proposal seriously and I hope it has the attention of everyone in this committee. This is a serious matter. I know the hon. members for Halifax will agree with me when I say we are very worried about the future of our winter activities in these ports. This would be one of the important tasks which an advisory committee appointed by this board could undertake right away. I have heard other projects mentioned. I shall not elaborate on these. I only hope the proposal I have just made will be given every consideration and that the result will have an important bearing on a matter which concerns the lifeblood of the maritime provinces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very interesting suggestion made by the hon. member and it is too bad that a report of this importance and of this character cannot be made public by the board.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. member for Lapointe.


Thomas Miller Bell: I feel I should reply to the observation made by the Leader of the Opposition. I presume he is sincerely interested in this question.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Lapointe.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say but one word to challenge the statement just made by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) and to call the attention of the committee to the fact that you will never develop an area by preventing the development of another. Winter navigation on the St. Lawrence as far as Quebec city or even farther up will not cut winter navigation in the harbours of Halifax and Saint John, in the maritimes.
I feel that if such a survey is to be made, it should not be made to try and block up certain entrances but to open up all our eastern ports. Therefore, if such a survey is made, the fact should be borne in mind that all areas of the country must be developed.
(Text):


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Lapointe. There is no intention to interfere with natural progress. I merely called for an assessment of our problem so that we may know exactly where we stand with respect to the moneys of all the people of Canada.
With regard to the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, I feel that the statistics of the Department of National Revenue and of the national harbours board which will give us the origin and destination of this traffic in the St. Lawrence have some degree of confidentiality attached to them, but they might be made available to this committee which could then make public its recommendations concerning this question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the course of this discussion we have not heard from the minister about the extent of the co-operation which this proposed body would have with the other boards which are being set up this session and with other, similar agencies which the government has set up from time to time obviously, in the past, at any rate, with the object of postponing decisions on important problems confronting the country.
We cannot pass clause 9 without addressing ourselves to the implications of subclause (2). It is regrettable that in a session during which the government is bringing forward measures which have to do with the establishment of so many boards, we did not begin our discussion with consideration of the first body which should naturally have been presented to us, namely the national economic development board. But this government, apparently not anxious to plan nationally, is not prepared to plan its work in this house and, as a result,

we are dealing in improper chronological order with these matters. I suggest it would have been proper to have dealt with the national economic development board first, then proceed to the amendments of the productivity council measure. We would then proceed with the Atlantic development board, not because the latter is not as important as the other boards in its proper context but because of the priority of the latter's functions. Had that order been observed, it would have fitted better into the over-all pattern.
Clause 9(2) calls upon the board to co-operate "to the greatest possible extent"-and I may say in passing that that is an unusual phrase to find in a statute. I complained last night about the imperfection in the draftsmanship of this bill. While I do not want to attribute that imperfection to the law officers of the crown, one of whom is present in this chamber, nevertheless it is, as I say, unusual to find this kind of language used in a statute. The bill does say that the board shall, to the greatest possible extent consistent with the performance of its duties under this act- whatever that may mean; I hope the minister is able to explain it-co-operate with the national development board, the national productivity council and all the departments, branches and other agencies of the government of Canada having duties relating to or having aims or objects related to those of the board. It would be interesting to know, first of all, what other agencies of the government of Canada, having duties or aims or objects related to those of this board, will provide an occasion for collaboration and cooperation under the terms of this subclause. The minister owes the committee an explanation, I think, in fairness to the statement made by the Minister of Finance when he introduced the measure dealing with the national economic development board-a statement to the effect that there was to be a form of integration between these various boards and the body which was the subject matter of the resolution the house was discussing at that time.
What is meant by saying that to the greatest possible extent there will be co-operation between this particular board and the national economic development board and the national productivity council? When the minister addresses himself to that question he will have to explain whether or not it is the intention to broaden the base of the productivity council itself, having in mind the complaints registered against that body by labour organizations and others which have criticized the narrowness of that particular council's approach. How is the Atlantic development board going to cooperate with the productivity council whose
Atlantic Development Board base is said by a wide section of public opinion in this country, including the chairman of that body, not to be broad enough? The minister must tell us that tonight because this clause imposes upon the board the duty of co-operation between it and the productivity council.
What is the relationship to be between this board and the national economic development board? Is the latter to be the dominant body? Is it to be the body which will take the initiative in bringing about this cooperation? How are these various bodies going to get together? I can very well visualize the reply that the minister is going to make. In that very generous, understanding, wholesome manner of his he is going to say: "Of course, the hon. gentleman, who has had experience on the ministerial benches, knows perfectly well how these things will work out", and he will say that if we will just have patience, not put too many embarrassing questions and will pass this bill readily, everything will work out well. That is the technique of my hon. friend, for whom, as he knows, I have the greatest personal esteem; but I am not going to allow that personal esteem to dominate my conviction as to the inadequacies of this measure.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask him now to tell us how this co-operation is going to take place. I suggest to him that this is the all important matter, now that the government has decided to set up this special board. We agree with it in principle. Personally I would have preferred to see the national board operate all over the country, with subdivisions which would have taken into account the special and serious economic problems of the Atlantic area. But now that the government has decided on this autonomous technique, giving to each of these boards a sovereignty of its own, it will be up to the minister to explain to us exactly how this kind of co-operation is going to be effected. Which minister is going to be in charge of the co-operation? Is it going to be the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Labour, or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has to do with the productivity council? Or perhaps it is going to be the Minister without Portfolio in another house, in which event it would be most regrettable because we would be denied the opportunity in this house of examining him as to the success of the co-operation envisaged in clause 9(2). I hope my hon. friend will not regard this as a specious or luxurious argument, because it is not.


Mr. McGee:: It is a filibuster.
2562	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board


Peter Francis Martin: My hon. friend from Scarborough says "filibuster". The greatest contribution he has made so far this session is the use of three words. One of them has been "filibuster," another has been "nonsense", and the third has been "stupid". I would say that all three apply to him in equal measure. My hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition points out to me that only one of them is an adjective, but let me put the nouns adjectivally because they still apply.
I would say to the minister that this is a very important matter. Either the government means business or it does not. The minister has not used the word "planning" once. The Minister of Finance has used the word "planning" once. The Minister of Labour outside this house today, when speaking to those who like the word "planning"-the members of the Canadian Congress of Labour-interlarded his whole speech with the word "planning" in almost every sentence. Does the government really intend to effect a planning process in trying to meet these problems? Is that the kind of co-operation which is envisaged in subsection (2)? I hope the minister will not think that I have been unfair with him tonight in asking him to tell us precisely how this co-operation is going to take place. What type of integration is going to be developed, or are we going to allow these three bodies to function independently of each other? Are we going to say that the fact that 14 per cent of the work force of Canada is out of work in the maritime provinces is a problem not related to the rest of Canada?
Mr. Chairman, the other day I attended, with the mayor from Moncton, the hon. member for Essex West, the hon. member for Essex South, a delegation of mayors from southwestern Ontario, and Essex county in particular, and certain mayors from the maritime provinces-


Hugh John Flemming: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Hugh John Flemming: May I
ask the hon. gentleman where he gets his figure of 14 per cent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend asks me that. He ought to turn to his right and ask the Minister of Labour, because as a matter of fact he would find that last winter it was higher than 14 per cent.


Mr. Starr:: Oh no.


Hugh John Flemming: I understood you to say that it was 14 per cent at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend tell me what the figure is right now?


Hugh John Flemming: The hon. member said it was 14 per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would ask my hon. friend whether I am wrong in that statement.


Michael Starr: You are.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour says that I am. I will let him produce the figures. I do not think I am wrong. But when I heard the Minister of Labour talking to the Canadian Congress of Labour this morning, speaking of the figures of unemployment, I would say to him that the figures which he gave on this occasion were not accurate either.
I was dealing with the nature of the problem which affects this particular board in relation to the rest of the country, and I pointed out that about ten days ago the members of parliament from the constituencies to which I referred, together with three mayors from Sydney, Glace Bay and one other town in Nova Scotia, and mayors from the city of Windsor, Tecumseh and Ojibway, and other places in Essex county, met with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Labour was not present, nor was the Minister of Finance, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare was there as the presiding officer and we discussed a problem that is common to many areas in Canada, especially to the maritime provinces and the many industrial areas of the country. I refer to the problem of runaway industry. We wranted to know what measures the government was prepared to take to deal with this very difficult situation. We wanted to know what fiscal measures the government had in mind. Was the government giving consideration to such things as a town and country act such as they have in England, or to the unemployment act passed in 1960 in England, as a means of trying to relieve the unemployment which resulted from industries moving from one area of high employment to an area of less employment? That is a problem not only common to the maritime provinces, where it attends many constituencies, but it is also a problem which affects many other areas, including the area from which I come.
What is going to be done about that problem? That is what is involved in clause 9(2). If the minister wants us to pass this measure and have us understand it in the terms in which it is presented, then let him tell us how he is going to deal, and how this government is going to deal, with this particular problem. The minister says, let us pass this bill and give it a trial. Of course we want to pass this bill, but we want to pass it with an

appreciation of what the government really intends to do about the implications and the provisions in this clause, which could mean, if properly resorted to, a great deal of relief in the matter of the relocation of industry to which I have just referred.
Mr. Chairman, these are not matters of ordinary concern. These are matters of great moment which affect thousands of people in our country. Surely we have the right tonight to ask the minister exactly what he means when he says that this board is going to work with the national economic development board, the national productivity council, all departments, branches, and other agencies of the government of Canada having duties, aims or objects relating to those of this board. Those are wonderful words. I now call upon the minister to give meaning to them.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of what I have to say I wish to associate myself with the point of view expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for Leeds. He took strong issue with the suggestion from the opposite side of the house that the debate on this very important item of legislation should be confined to the members of the Atlantic provinces.


An hon. Member:: That was never suggested.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I heard it. It is in Hansard. I wish to identify myself very closely with what the hon. member for Leeds said, as I fully believe the position which he took is the only sound one. Simply because I do not represent a constituency in the Atlantic provinces does not mean that I and other members of this House of Commons have not followed this bill with just as keen interest as have hon. members from the maritime provinces during the course of the debate.
References were made-one by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, as I recall it-* to the migration from the Atlantic provinces to other parts of Canada. Since I am one of the migrants it would be most surprising if my interest in the maritime provinces and the well-being of the Atlantic provinces is not just as keen as that of those hon. members who still live there. It was because of this special interest, not because I intended to take any part in the debate, that I carefully studied Bill No. C-94. I spent a great deal of time on it, especially on the clause now under review, namely clause 9. It was perhaps because of the diligence with which the hon. member for Spadina and I pursued this study that we two joined with the other members on this side of the house in opposing the amendment that was proposed. We felt that the power which the hon. member for Cape Breton South was trying to get already existed. However, it
Atlantic Development Board is one thing to be of the opinion that a board has the power sought by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, that it is already in existence, but it is a very different thing to agree with the government that this bill contains all the objects and powers that are needed to make it the success which the people of the maritimes and the people of the rest of Canada hope it will be.
When I heard the Minister of National Revenue introduce this bill I was hopeful that the government had some well conceived plan of action tied with the plan of action for the national economic development board. I was hopeful that the government contemplated the establishment of a board which could play an effective part in shaping a program that would restore the prosperity that existed in the maritime provinces when my four grandparents settled there well over one hundred years ago. However, a study of the objects and the powers will show that such is not the case. In the first place-and here I think the hon. member for Essex East put his finger on one of the weaknesses, one very important fact. We do not know how this national economic development council is going to function in conjunction with the economic development board for the Atlantic regions. It is quite true that in subclause 2 of clause 9 reference is made to the fact that there shall be co-operation between these boards. However, co-operation is not enough. The C.B.C. and the other great board in our field of telecommunications are supposed to co-operate, but we have seen what has happened there. More than that is needed. What is needed is some form of mechanism that will bring about an effective working arrangement between the boards. It could be in the form of interlocking directorates or common members of the different boards. However, that weakness certainly exists.
I might say that when I first discussed this bill-and I was disappointed when I saw the bill; not when I saw the resolution, but when I saw the bill-when I first discussed it with other members, not just those on this side of the chamber but from other parts of the house, considerable concern was expressed as to why there should be a separate board for only one part of Canada. I might say that I am not one who shares that view. I believe that if an economic development board for the Atlantic region, composed of well informed, courageous and dedicated people-and there are plenty of them in that part of Canada-had an assurance of adequate funds with which to do some of the work that is essential down there, and had the assurance that they would have capital at the right time to correct the economic ills they find, much could be done. My reasons
2564	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board for saying that there should be a special economic development in the Atlantic regions are very simple. It is a known fact that since confederation economic developments, not in all parts but unfortunately in too many parts, of the maritime provinces have lagged behind the rest of Canada. Prospects and economic conditions down there are certainly not nearly as bright as my friend the Minister of Finance this afternoon intimated they were. Whether the figure is 14 per cent as suggested by the hon. member for Essex East or some slightly lower figure, it is still the highest unemployment level in Canada; and something should be done to improve conditions down there.
It is not because of the people of the maritimes that this difficulty exists. Not only have some of our greatest educationists, industrialists, bankers and lawyers but, and by no means the least, some of our ablest politicians have certainly come from that part of the world. However, in spite of the acknowledged ability of these people from the maritimes, the economy has lagged behind that of the rest of Canada. I say that the reason is a simple one. Geographically and economically the Atlantic provinces have closer ties with the New England states than they have with central and western Canada. The Atlantic provinces, however, have very strong ties with the rest of Canada, including ties of sentiment and of blood. These are very strong ties. If these ties had not been as strong as they are, they might have snapped long before this. As I say, in spite of these economic difficulties, the maritimes are still a very important and vital part of this nation. However, they need more than an act such as the one within the framework of this bill.
All of the maritime provinces have untapped resources. Newfoundland has a richness of forest wealth and has an important forest industry that needs help. It has great mineral wealth. We are just beginning to realize the importance of the mineral wealth of this tenth province. New Brunswick has rich forest land. It has valuable fisheries. It also has mineral wealth and a great hydroelectric potential. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have great wealth. However, the mineral and the forest wealth of Newfoundland needs more than advice and encouragement. It needs more exploration. It needs more geological work and more research, and it certainly needs working capital. Then I might mention the huge salt deposits in Nova Scotia-many Canadians have never heard of them-and the natural gas wells down near the Tantramar marshes. With the scientific developments that have gone on


in the last 20 years there are great possibilities in this part of Canada, not to mention the province of New Brunswick.
There is an industry there now, but what it needs is working capital. Many people would be astounded at the development that would be possible in the peat bogs of Northumberland county. So, I say that the difficulty under which the maritime provinces are working is this geographical barrier which ties them closer to the New England states than to central Canada. We have a special problem, and that problem needs a special board, an Atlantic regional board to handle it. I feel that this board should have the assurance of the necessary financing behind it. It is for this reason I was disappointed when the very constructive suggestion included in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Charlotte was turned down this afternoon on a technicality.
I do not believe that anyone could seriously quarrel with the reasoning of the chairman when this amendment was turned down. Nevertheless, there is so much merit in the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Charlotte that I feel the minister who is sponsoring this bill should give it careful consideration. He should see that funds of the magnitude suggested by the hon. member are made available by the government. The fact that there is no provision of that kind in the bill, the fact that we had barely opened discussion of this bill when it was announced the provision for the $3,000 salary would be amended authorizing the government to fix the salary, illustrates the fact that this bill has not had the careful thought and consideration the economic plight of the martime provinces would warrant. This concrete suggestion by the hon. member for Charlotte should receive consideration, and I commend it to the minister. I say that if a private member cannot move such an amendment, there is no reason why the government cannot take it under advisement overnight and come back with an amendment that would cover the situation.
Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, there is one other suggestion I should like to put forward, and which I also commend to the government for its consideration. I believe this suggestion would go a long way toward providing a satisfactory answer to the question that has been troubling the hon. member for Essex East as well as other members in this house. I refer to the question, what do we do with two economic development councils and a national productivity council, and how are they going to work together? I suggest this bill might be amended, or perhaps Bill No. C-87 providing for the national productivity council might be amended, to provide for an interlocking membership. At

least the chairman of the Atlantic board should, ex officio, be a member of the national board. This is a constructive suggestion that should be implemented in one of these bills. I am putting this forward merely in the hope that it will be accepted and acted upon in the spirit in which it is made.
(Translation):


Mr. Maltais:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few remarks to make on clause 9 of Bill No. C-94.
I agree with the hon. members. As a matter of fact, I put the following question a few days ago: What are exactly the duties of all boards that are presently at the service of the government? But I feel that the Atlantic provinces form part of an area which has been overlooked in the past, in the political and economical history of Canada. Now, those provinces, as well as areas such as the one I represent, the lower St. Lawrence and the north shore districts, need a very special board to protect their interests.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the hon. member who was wondering, a moment ago, about the usefulness of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river.
Like the hon. member for Lapointe, I submit that one region should not be ruined to help another one. One region should not be deprived of what it succeeded in obtaining after years of difficulties and requests, to assist another region.
I wonder if the hon. member, when he asked if it was useful to spend so much money to open up the St. Lawrence in winter, thought of putting the question to the agricultural producers of the Atlantic regions as well as to the potato producers.
I would like an inquiry like that one be made to find out if the money used to ensure winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river really helps potato producers and other producers in the Atlantic area.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few words I wanted to add to the remarks of the hon. member.
(Text):


Mr, Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Back from the wars.


Mr. Macquarrie:: I wish that the rules of the house would permit me to comment on that remark by my hon. friend, so I could acquaint him with the results of that war. I should like to say a word about this important matter. I hope the member for Essex East was not suggesting that greater priority should attach to the other boards he mentioned.
Atlantic Development Board


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was suggesting the opposite.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I was not exactly sure what he said, but recalling the record of the government of which he was a member I thought he had put forward the suggestions X have outlined. However, X will take his word for it. I recall quite well that the leader of his party in my province declared the government of which he was a member had not even given my province half a deal.
This forward step is something which we should all applaud. I very much appreciate the fact that members from other parts of the country have spoken on this important matter. As the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, who spoke this evening, said, we are still a vital part of the dominion and we have throughout the years suffered from some political and economic policies which were nationally developed. I feel, therefore, it is high time that a board of eminence and priority was assigned to look upon our region and to assist us to develop policies of selfhelp which will bring our region to a level comparable to the other parts of the dominion. This, I regard, as an essential second step to the kind of direct assistance through subsidies, as well as conditional and unconditional grants, which have come our way in the last five years. The improvement in the last five years is exemplified by the fact that in my own little province these have been increased from $5 million plus to $12.5 million.
I want to say that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre commends itself to me. I refer to the suggestion that the chairman of this very important body, which I say takes second place to any mentioned by the hon. member for Essex East, might very well be ex officio a member of the national economic development board. This strikes me as being an extremely valuable suggestion. I do not know of any national board which could not profit by the presence of a maritimer, if immodesty may be pardoned.
I would like to commend to the minister under clause 9, when we consider the measures to deal with the problems connected with the fostering of economic growth and development, that our ancient industry of agriculture be not ignored. There is a narrow concept of the word "industry" as being something that is symbolized by a factory and belching smokestack. We of course want industries developed in our provinces by the sea, but we also want a greater rationalization of our ancient industry of agriculture.
I would impress upon the minister with all the sincerity at my command that when
2566	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board this board is set up, and I hope it will be set up soon, that an integration, a rationalization and advancement of the agricultural industry be given great consideration. There is much we can do. We are a deficiency area in agricultural products which we produce in the very highest and most acceptable degree.
I would like to say too, and say it very briefly, that naturally I consider that among those projects the feasibility of which need no further consideration is the causeway linking my province with New Brunswick, a project in which a certain hon. member across the way has developed a keen interest of late years. We regard this as a decision which has already been taken, and I rejoice in what the minister said the other day. However there may well be important economic considerations which might be looked at most carefully by this board. One sees an interesting social and economic pattern developing at either end of the Canso causeway, and I would think forward looking gentlemen of the board ought to give consideration to what will happen when other provinces in the maritimes are finally linked to the banner province of Prince Edward Island.
I rejoice in the scope of the bill. I think that clause 9 betokens the kind of co-operation which will be conducive to an improvement of maritime conditions and I am one who is not at all concerned, despite the eloquence of the hon. member for Essex East, about the feasibility of co-operation among various boards. I think a direct application of the finest minds we can gather together upon the problems of the Atlantic region will be conducive to a betterment of our whole national economy.
(Translation):


Mr. Dumont:: Mr. Chairman, the member who spoke before me said a few words about agriculture. I would like to add my own comments, tonight, because I do not think it is necessary to have an Atlantic development board, when, statistics in hand, we know that, at the present time, in Prince Edward Island, out of 12,000 farmers, 2,460 have an income lower than $1,200 a year; that in New Brunswick, out of 22,000 farmers, 13,000 do not make $1,200 annually; that in Nova Scotia, out of 21,000, 13,000 have an income of less than $1,200; that in Newfoundland, out of 2,387, 1,857 do not get an income of $1,200.
To solve the agriculture problem in eastern Canada, as I suggested at the beginning of the twenty fifth parliament, we have only to build grain elevators, reduce the price of [Mr. Macquarrie.l

feed grain, to enable the eastern farmers to get products at a better price. It is not necessary to spend more in order to secure votes at the next election. Eastern farmers want lower priced feed grain. They want to sell the products they have on hand.
Let us give the Canadian consumers, those who have children, like our Quebec people, the power to purchase the commodities produced in their own province.
Let us double the family allowances. Let us vote a larger grant to the sports council in order to train young people who, in then-spare time, will develop and become strong enough to come here and claim their rights. Let us stop establishing boards which will bring no benefit to the people of this country.
(Text):


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, the remarks that have been made by various speakers since the committee resumed at eight o'clock are deserving of a great deal of attention and should be treated with the greatest respect. I have been impressed with some of the speeches that have been made, and at this particular moment I would like to address myself to the points raised by the hon. gentleman from Essex East, because he asked some point blank questions and requested specific replies.
It is not always possible to give specific and categorical replies to all questions, and I would like to suggest to him that he should read subclause (1) of clause 9 and read the objectives of the board as set forth in that subclause. He will find that the objects of the board are:
-to inquire into and report to the minister upon measures and projects for fostering economic growth and development of the Atlantic region of Canada, and, without further limiting the generality of the foregoing, the board may, in furtherance of its objects-
And then it goes on to be somewhat specific. I would like to direct the attention of the hon. member to subclause (1) in its context and by itself, and to consider that it points out the primary duty of the board.
The board has a variety of functions and will deal with a variety of geographical areas to which it must give attention. There will be a variety of questions coming before it, some of which have been mentioned by speakers both tonight and on previous occasions in this debate. These will all have a place in the functions of the board, but I put forward subsection (1) of this clause as being the part of the clause which should be emphasized. In that connection 1 suggest to the hon. gentleman that the points which he has raised

are of secondary significance and not of primary significance so far as the bill is concerned.
The hon. gentleman has brought up the question of co-operation between other boards, and it would seem to me it is difficult to spell out in detail and in precise terms just what that co-operation will consist of in this case. It is difficult even to explain what one may have in mind because we may differ in our concepts of the detailed way in which this board will function. To the extent of my limited experience in the commercial world of this country, I found that the most important thing in the conduct of a business was management, proper management and management by people with ability. In that connection I found that you did not gain by trying to determine in advance how you should meet every situation. If you did, you might as well have a clerk as a manager. So I suggest to my hon. friend that co-operation with other boards should be the secondary function of this board. The primary function should be to do the very things set forth in clause 9, subclause 1. Perhaps I may read it again:
The objects of the board are to inquire into and report to the minister upon measures and projects for fostering the economic growth and development of the Atlantic region of Canada-
That is the mast on which I would nail this particular flag, so far as the board's primary duty is concerned. I do not think we should allow this board to become impotent, because it might very well be rendered so by putting some kind of a rope around its neck and saying to it, "You must co-operate here. You must co-operate there. Here is another area in which you must co-operate". I think we have to give the board freedom of action with the idea in mind that this is for the good of the country in general. Mr. Chairman, I am sure we will all, as Canadians, face the fact, that a prosperous and favourable economic climate in Canada-and when I say Canada, I mean all of Canada-is just as important, and perhaps more important, to the Atlantic provinces as it is to any other part of this country. So I do not see any conflict here. In fact, quite the opposite; I think there will be definite co-operation. I think the emphasis must be on the Atlantic provinces. That will be the duty of the board. But I see no particular difficulty about cooperation with other boards which will be before this house for legislative enactment in the very near future.
Mr. Chairman, I would like at this stage to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. friend for Queens in connection with a suggestion made by the hon. gentleman from Vancouver Centre. I see great merit in
Atlantic Development Board his suggestion. I see no reason why it should not be adopted. I have no reason to think that it will not be adopted. I think it is a constructive idea. Various other points have been raised, Mr. Chairman, and I made a note of them. I believe I have dealt with them, although I do not know that I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. gentleman from Essex East to his satisfaction. I have dealt with them to my own satisfaction inasmuch as my own conception of the board is concerned; that is, its primary duty, its secondary duty and the fact that under subclause (d) you find that they even consider matters, not projects but matters, that may be usefully considered. Perhaps I may refer to the subclause:
-consider and report to the minister upon any other matters that in the opinion of the board may usefully be considered-
I consider that could be a variety of things. That can certainly cover the subject mentioned by my hon. friend from Saint John-Albert. It could almost cover the waterfront, so far as that is concerned. In connection with the development of the area with regard to which this board will have a good deal of responsibility, I am quite satisfied that they have the greatest degree of flexibility under this bill. I do not want to get into a discussion about what we started to do in this country 100 years ago, and the fact that we started to work against geography in our concept of building a nation. We were going to have the trade flow east and west instead of north and south because the final concept was that we were going to build a nation. In my opinion the fathers of confederation had no conception of how great this country was destined to be. I believe we have made tremendous progress as a country. The trade must flow east and west to the extent that we can work toward that end in a proper manner and without any great injustice to any part of this great country and the fringe areas. In particular the eastern fringe areas may perhaps be considered by some of us as operating under something of an economic handicap. But I still submit that the advantages we have seen from association with the rest of Canada have been tremendous, and I for one do not regret that almost 100 years ago in 1867 they decided to embark upon this great venture against geography, and build a great nation with the trade flowing east and west.
This is a measure the government have submitted to parliament as their idea of a concrete step that might be taken to contribute to the development of that portion of this great country known as the Atlantic provinces. Every speaker has admitted that the bill is not perfect, and very few bills

Atlantic Development Board are perfect. It would be too bad if it were perfect, because our hon. friends would not have anything to find fault with and they would not be able to carry out their function as the official opposition. In that event I do not know what would happen to the hon. member for Essex East. He would not be able to rise with that eloquence for which he is famous and really sweep us off our feet from time to time, as he does, unless there was something he thought lacking in the legislation before the house.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say at this stage. I believe that all the objections and misgivings that have been raised have been dealt with. With regard to the points made by my hon. friend from Queens, the committee may be sure that since the constituency I have the honour to represent is probably the best agricultural constituency in Canada, those points will certainly not be ignored so far as any influence that I may have is concerned. The points raised by all hon. members who have spoken will receive the greatest degree of consideration, and the misgivings expressed, particularly by my hon. friend from Essex East, I am sure will not be serious to the operation of the statute.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to detain the committee for more than a moment, especially in view of the last statement of the minister and the spirit in which it was made. We all on this side agree about the objective of this bill within the context of not only regional but national development. But the minister will agree with us that there cannot be satisfactory regional development in Canada unless there is adequate national development. Therefore we are most anxious-and this is one of the sources of our worry about this bill-that a bill of this character setting up a regional development board will not be obstructed or limited in its operation in any way by a national development board which has the same kind of duty and the same kind of function on a national scale.
The minister says that each board must be given freedom of action, and of course that is correct up to a point. He also said it would be unwise, if I understood him correctly, to so restrict the operation of this particular board that it would have a rope around its neck, and of course that is correct. But when the minister says we do not have to worry about the danger of non co-operation between boards which have similar functions in different areas; when he says, I think these were his words, that co-operation of this kind is not of primary significance, I think he underestimates the importance of this question.
[Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton) .1

I recall very well the occasion a few years ago when we were debating in this house the establishment of the board of broadcast governors as part of the reorganization of the broadcasting system in this country. Some of us at that time pointed out the danger of conflict between the two important bodies which had been established in this field. But we were told at that time there was no need to worry about it. It is true the arguments used, though very much along the lines the minister has used tonight, were probably not advanced with the same skill and dexterity; they did not have the soothing quality which belongs to the Minister of National Revenue. However, we said then that the board of broadcast governors would undoubtedly come into conflict with the C.B.C. if steps were not taken at that time to avoid the possibility of such a conflict. Of course, events have proved we were right.
We are worried now about the same thing happening in this field. Our fears are increased because the Minister of Finance, speaking on another subject, the setting up of the national development board, said- and I have his words here: "The national development board will investigate, analyse and report on the medium and long term prospects and possibilities of particular areas." The maritime provinces certainly constitute a particular area. Those are special terms of reference and special functions for this very important board, and therefore it is of first significance to do everything possible to avoid overlapping, to avoid one board getting in the way of another. Surely, this is something which cannot be left to a general feeling that the boards will work out their own processes of co-operation as they go along. It is, I think, regrettable that some provision has not been made to ensure that serious overlapping will not take place. A certain amount of overlapping is inevitable. A certain amount, perhaps, may even be good. But when overlapping results in confusion, confusion will probably result in conflict. Therefore I think it is of first importance that provision should be made in some way-I know it cannot now be made under the terms of the legislation itself-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Tommyrot.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is an interesting comment from the hon. gentleman. It is the kind of observation we have been led to expect from him. But, as I was saying, it is of first importance-


An hon. Member:: Let us get on with it.

Atlantic Development Board The Deputy Chairman: Order. I would ask time and places of meetings so as to include members of the committee to give the Leader one meeting at least in Ottawa. Would the of the Opposition the opportunity to com- board have jurisdiction to do that under the plete his remarks on clause 9 of the bill. bylaws?


Lester Bowles Pearson: So it is of first importance that the government should take all possible steps that can be taken to ensure, as far as government can ensure, that this overlapping, confusion and conflict do not take place.
We hope the minister is right in his optimistic feeling that this will not happen, but we think it is our duty to warn him that it might well happen within the terms of this legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Meetings.
Leon David Crestohl: Clause 10 speaks of the times and places at which meetings should be held. This, to me, is simply a matter of bylaws and routine regulations. I should like to ask the minister whether these provisions should not fall within clause 12. If the hon. gentleman will be good enough to look at clause 12 he will see it refers to bylaws. Why cannot what it now contained in clause 10 be dealt with in clause 12?


Hugh John Flemming: The
justifications for this clause is that there are various reasons which make it most desirable that there should be at least one meeting held in Ottawa. It was felt that in the interest of the most efficient discharge of the board's duties there should be the one meeting here.
This point was raised some time ago by another hon. member in connection with meetings of the board to be held at various places and at various times. It was felt, of course, that the board should have freedom to meet at various places in the Atlantic provinces. It might, for example, wish to hold one meeting in Newfoundland, another in Nova Scotia, and so on. But one meeting must be held in Ottawa itself.


Leon David Crestohl: But why cannot the bylaws made under clause 12 provide precisely for what the minister has just set forth?


Hugh John Flemming: I think I would have to answer in this way. While this is an Atlantic development board, we are still justified, I am sure, in looking on it as a federal board. Its funds will come from the federal government and, we hope, its financial resources will also come from the federal government. It is a federal board in spite of the fact that it is an Atlantic development board. I see no inconsistency about that.


Leon David Crestohl: Clause 12 gives the board the power to make its bylaws. Can the minister say if it would be precluded from setting up 27507-3-163


Hugh John Flemming: I am
sure that the hon. member has more knowledge of company law than I have. I see no reason why it could not be done in the way suggested, but it has not been done in that way. However, I see no reason why it should be condemned because we have not done it in that way.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am in support of clause 10 as it stands. History has been invoked tonight. I might point out to the minister that Charlottetown was the scene of an important conference at which maritime union was discussed. This led to an important and wonderful event, the confederation of the British North American colonies, and I should like to take the opportunity of suggesting that the first meeting of this board should take place in the historic city where it all began.


Mr. Pugh:: With reference to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cartier, that the provision in clause 10 might be contained in clause 12, dealing with bylaws, I should like to point out that bylaws may be changed from time to time-


Rémi Paul: Order. The hon. member cannot speak about clause 12 because clause 10 has not been carried.


David Vaughan Pugh: With respect to the suggestion that clause 10 was not necessary because its substance could be included in clause 12, I am only pointing out that this is a specific instruction which is put into the bill that at least one meeting of the board each year must be held in Ottawa. It is all right to put that in the bylaws, but I would point out that the bylaws are subject to change by the board as they see fit.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
On clause 12-Bylaws.
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, under this clause the board is given the latitude to make bylaws for the regulation of its proceedings "and generally for the conduct of its activities". I think that the words "and generally" contained in that phrase in the clause could be confusing. We have had debates in this house in the past in which I think the Prime Minister, at one time, said that we ought to review our statutes to see to what extent authority is given to various boards to make their own bylaws. Frequently when making their own bylaws boards have allowed themselves rather unusual latitude. In some cases

Atlantic Development Board boards have been established and made bylaws which provided that there shall be no appeal from their decisions, that their decisions could not be taken before the courts, for example, by way of a writ of prohibition. Probably their bylaws carry them a little too far. I was wondering just how far this rather innocuous statement can take this board, when we give it power to make bylaws generally for the conduct of its activities. If it was intended that the board may make bylaws for the regulation of its proceedings, then that is sufficient and would be acceptable to me. But to go beyond giving it the authority to make bylaws for the regulation of its proceedings is, I think, going far beyond what parliament intends a board to do.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to give some explanation to this committee of what is intended by the words "and generally make bylaws for the conduct of its activities".


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. gentleman, I am sure he is familiar with the general process of making bylaws in companies. Bylaws can run to 25 or 30 in number, even from my limited knowledge of company law, so as to regulate the activities of a company, its staff, and other matters. I cannot see any other way of doing it except in a general way, as this language indicates, namely, to say "for the conduct of its activities, including the establishment of advisory and other committees-". I think that later on, when the duties are set forth in a little more detail, the need for specific bylaws will become even more apparent. I do not know how helpful I have been, but I have tried to be as helpful as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay this matter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, if hon. members think it is humorous, let them laugh. That is about the only thing they have done since parliament opened. May I point out that although amending this clause may delay matters somewhat, I would invite the minister's attention to the fact that if, after the word "proceedings," the clause had continued "including the establishment of advisory and other committees" established by the board, the clause would indicate very clearly that the board may establish bylaws for the regulation of its activities, just as the clause now reads, as well as for the regulation of committees of the board which may be established. But I would eliminate what I call an
[Mr. Crestohl.l
innocuous expression, namely "and generally for the conduct of its activities". All that the minister wants the clause to do is to give the board latitude to adopt bylaws for the regulation of its proceedings. That is what I think the committee would gladly grant, but not anything further than what is defined.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, while we were not able to take down the amendment suggested by the hon. member, it seemed to us to have a defect in that it would not comprehend bylaws with regard to staff matters. That was one of the reasons, as the minister has explained, why this clause was phrased in just such a way. There will not only be a board and subcommittees, but there will also be the responsibility on the board and its executive director to hire staff, and to make pension arrangements, salary arrangements, and what-not with them. All these matters are covered under the provision relating to bylaws, but under the proposal of my hon. friend from Cartier they would not be covered. That is why we adopted this language in the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
On clause 14-Technical and special advisors.
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, this is the last clause of the bill with which we are going to deal, and I want to make a very few brief points with regard to it, and at least attempt to obtain some clarification from the minister. This is the key section of the bill. It provides that:
The board may engage on a temporary basis or for any period of not more than two years-
And so on. At first glance it seems that this is another of those ridiculous provisions, similar to the $3,000 honorarium originally suggested for the chairman. The minister has already made it clear, as the other clauses of the bill indicate, that the primary responsibility and the principal activities of the board and its staff will be directed into the fields of study, research, investigation, and what-have-you. This would seem to indicate that it would be essential to obtain the services of technical experts, economists, statisticians and sociologists. The government has already made a great deal of the permanent staff which will be available in the form of the executive director and other employees of the board. We suggest that it would be very difficult, if not completely impossible, to attract, for example, an economist from a university, where he would have pension provision, summer holidays, and the like, and

Business of the House
to ask him to take on an assignment which offers him no security whatsoever and no long term engagement.
Therefore we suggest an amendment which I think is not very controversial but which will provide for this problem. I therefore move:
That clause 14 be amended by adding after the words "on a temporary'' in the first line thereof the words "or permanent" and deleting the words "or for any period of not more than two years" in the second line thereof, so that the clause as amended will read:
"14. The board may engage on a temporary or permanent basis the services of persons having technical or specialized knowledge of any matter relating to the work of the board, to advise and assist the board in the performance of its duties under this act, and with the approval of the treasury board may fix and pay the remuneration of such persons."
I suggest that the minister has been asking for objective suggestions. If this amendment does not fit into that category, then I do not know what type of suggestion he is looking for. I am sure all hon. members who are sincerely interested in this board's being able to do something useful would want to provide it with the opportunity to attract qualified people on a full time basis.


Hugh John Flemming: In making some observations in reply to the hon. gentleman I might say that a good deal of discussion took place before this section was phrased and that what is contemplated here is the matter of consulting firms who might be employed on a temporary basis to make a report on certain things. For instance, I could make a report on the particular merit of, we will say, Cape Breton coal for a certain purpose. These consultants might have specialized knowledge and they might make a specialized examination. It is contemplated that clause 13 will cover the staff. Clause 14 covers the specialized examinations which it is envisaged might be necessary for the success of the board, and provides that for these examinations they might have authority to engage the services of consultants.


Donald MacInnis: If this is what the minister and those who drafted the bill meant, why did they not say so? If they covered staff and persons in clause 13, why did they not say "services of organizations and consulting
firms"? It seems to me that there is a loophole in the provision. I do not think the amendment is going to interfere in any way with the intent of the minister with regard to organizations or consulting firms. He does not mention anywhere in clause 13 technically qualified persons such as economists and so on.


Rémi Paul: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Maclnnis) negatived: Yeas, 53; nays, 65.


Rémi Paul: I declare the
amendment lost. Shall clause 14 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader if he can let us know what the government intends to prescribe for tomorrow, and if he will give any further information he feels he can now impart. I realize that certain consultations are going on and that he may not wish to go beyond tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In view of the consultations which will be going on in the various parties tomorrow and the discussions and the consultations following that among the various house leaders, I think I shall announce for tomorrow only the third reading of this bill, which I think will be satisfactory, followed by interim supply.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
27507-3-163J
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]
*
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
[Stage Direction]


Wednesday, December 12, 1962