Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-Carlelon):

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.

Mr. Crestohl:

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

Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-Carlelon):

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.

Mr. Creslohl:

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

Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-Carlelon):

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.

Mr. 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-

The Deputy Chairman:

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

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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".

Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-Carlelon):

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.

Carried.

Mr. Cresiohl:

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay this matter-

Oh, oh.

Mr. Cresiohl:

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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Maclnnis:

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.

Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):

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.