Let me say at the outset that I support the principle of this legislation. Some hon. Members have criticized the advisability of proceeding by means of grants as against tax incentives or tax reductions. Let me point out, having been in business, that there is a difference between the two: Before you get tax credits you must make a profit. The purpose of this legislation is in part to share the risk. It has been said on many occasions that the Government is a partner in the profits-why not in the risk?

Having said this, may I add that I find the resolution something of a paradox. I understand from the definition the Minister gave that these provisions only apply to manufacturing or processing facilities. I put it to the Minister that most of the areas designated are four-square with the tourist industry. Nevertheless, the tourist industry is not included in the definition. I am afraid we regard the tourist industry as not being an industry at all. Mr. Deutsch of the Economic Council has indicated that new jobs will have to be found in the service industries rather than in the manufacturing industries. I put it to the Minister that there is some help already available for manufacturing industries, while no help is available to the tourist industry of this country, to bring it up to date.

DEBATES 3011

Grants to Designated Areas

We should consider the fact that Canadians and Americans will have more time and more money to spend. Despite the many natural attractions of this country they will be reluctant to spend more of these dollars here until our facilities have been improved and brought up to date. Our operators do not have the money to make the necessary improvements. Consider the facilities which are available in New York State where the tourist industry has now become an important full time industry. To cater efficiently to the needs of tourists, local help is necessary, and this is a field which can probably be developed to even more profitable advantage than the relocation of manufacturing and processing.

I have no criticism to make of this measure. I think it will help the general economic situation. But I should like to call attention to the fact that the Government has neglected to include the tourist industry in its definition, and with great respect I suggest the Department of Industry should take another look at this industry, bearing in mind that it may be comparable in employment opportunities to the manufacturing and processing industries in the areas concerned.

Mr. Ricard:

Mr. Chairman, the resolution under study gives me the opportunity to express my opinion and that of two so-called independent bodies, with regard to this measure. I hope the information I shall provide to the minister will help him correct, if possible, the inadequacies of this legislation. But before starting my remarks, I must say that I sympathize with the minister, because it must certainly be most distressing to be criticized by one's own political colleagues. I commend the previous speaker for his objectivity and I trust that the minister, contrary to what he has always done up to now, will take heed of his advice and act accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, I entirely support the opinion expressed a few moments ago by my colleague, the hon. Member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales). I think that, because of other similar measures taken by various governments, the present measure is only a duplication of what has been done by other governments; in fact, it is not entirely lacking in political sense and shows some understanding of what patronage can do for a government. In any case, I submit that this initial amount of $50 million seems very impressive and I am of the opinion that the

June 29, 1965

Grants to Designated Areas minister would be well advised to take note of any advice given him, particularly from this side of the house.

If you take a quick look at the various designated areas, you are bound to come to the conclusion that the Liberal ridings, especially those represented by cabinet ministers, are particularly well treated, and in that regard I will bring evidence only from people with nothing at stake in this matter, namely the mayor of St. Hyacinthe and the provincial Minister of Industry and Commerce, Mr. Gerard Levesque.

I cannot help notice that, to a similar extent, the government gives quite a special treatment to big companies and does not give the necessary consideration to small ones.

In my province, handicraft, small industry, family industry play a very important part and I believe that the minister should give particular consideration to that sector of industry. Small industry has played a very important role in the past and, because of the lack of consideration and support by the government, and because of competition on the part of big industries, those small local family companies find themselves in a very precarious position. Therefore, I beg the minister to grant this situation a special consideration in order to rectify, if necessary, the deficiencies of this resolution.

I was saying a moment ago that I would like to convey to hon. members the appreciation of the mayor of St. Hyacinthe and of the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce. I should like to quote part of an article published in Le Courrier on February 4, 1965:

If the city of St. Hyacinthe is in such a had state as far as industrial development is concerned, even though it is financially and administratively sound and in a position to provide many services to individuals as well as to institutions, the federal government at Ottawa is indirectly to blame because of the various areas it has considered as designated areas.

It goes on to say:

In short, that is the opinion expressed by His Honour Mayor Jacques Lafontaine, on Monday, to city council in connection with the annual brief presented by the central council of national unions and following his trip to Quebec City where he met, last Thursday, Mr. Gerard-D. Levesque, Minister of Industry and Commerce, to discuss the impossible situation of a city such as ours.

Everybody knows that our city lost several new industries to other municipalities, such as St. John and Shawinigan, to mention only those two.

Now, those cities are in so-called designated areas because of their high rate of unemployment, and their administrators are now able to give

extraordinary advantages to industries wishing to settle within their limits-

That is the opinion of the mayor of the City of St. Hyacinthe. But what is the opinion of the provincial minister of Industry and Commerce? Here it is:

The Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce stated that normal cities are getting a poor deal but that the provincial government is not responsible, because it was not consulted in any way by the federal authorities which, on their own initiative, decided which were the designated areas in our province.

And the minister concluded:

As long as this deplorable state of affairs is maintained, the chances for industrial development in the province will be small, and the federal state is the only one to blame.

Mr. Chairman, in quoting the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce, I feel that I am repeating the remarks of a person who is not a political enemy of the federal Minister of Industry and I find it odd that a provincial Liberal minister should speak in such strong language about this federal Liberal government. It is surely because the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce felt justified in doing so when he visited St. Hyacinthe and also when the mayor of St. Hyacinthe went to Quebec City, and made the statement I have just quoted.

I wish the minister would devote a little more attention to the development of trade and commerce in our province and a little less attention to political patronage, which is beneficial only to his party.

I do hope that these words will give the minister food for thought and allow the municipalities in the province of Quebec, and more particularly the city of St. Hyacinthe, to obtain their fair share.

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Chairman, representing a large area of northern Ontario where this type of legislation was considered to be very advantageous because of particular factors, I am very unhappy with the operation of this Act and with the whole operation of the Department of Industry which has administered the Act. It is a fact that there are areas of Canada that are in need beyond all others of government assistance in developing industry. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, the hue and cry that went up when the Prime Minister's area was hard hit with unemployment a year or two ago when they closed down the uranium industry as such. You will remember, also, that at that time

June 29, 1965

the Government had spent millions and millions of dollars in regard to that particular affair, for which the Liberal Party can take absolutely no credit but have to bear a great deal of blame, in the development of that industry.

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)

Remember the community of Nickel Belt which supplied uranium to the United States. The town almost disintegrated overnight when this industry was no longer needed and Parliament was asked to designate it a distressed area. I think everyone in Canada agreed with this action because a large number of people were displaced and a terrific amount of capital wasted and squandered on the expectation that this mining community would continue for a number of years.

A number of people objected this afternoon to things which had happened in the past. I am aware that this type of incentive does produce anomalies in areas it is meant to help. We are all familiar with the situation in Brantford. Some of us are aware of the situation in the Waterloo area. We are aware of the fact that this legislation has caused many unpleasantries and much unhappiness between communities which have taken advantage of this legislation, and others which have not. Kirkland Lake is a good example of the type of area not considered. Renfrew is in no different position, as are a number of other locations in every province in Canada. These are communities which died slowly over a long period of time.

The industrial commission in Kirkland Lake went to see some government officials in Ottawa on two occasions on the question of assistance to develop secondary industry. The first time they were surprised that the Department of Labour did not have sole jurisdiction over deciding what should be the criterion, what the incentive program would be and how the designated areas were decided. They were surprised that the Department of Labour considered Kirkland Lake to be fairly well off because of two factors. One was that there was no unemployment, which is fairly easily understood. The other was that the total wealth per person in the area is not very great. I am wondering whether the township I live in is one of the most wealthy townships in the country, if that is the kind of statistic used. I may be one of the few taxpayers in my area, but because of the income I receive these statistics may indicate that this is a wealthy taxpaying area. Certainly the farmers in my area do not pay

Grants to Designated Areas much tax, so if this sort of criterion is used the situation becomes ridiculous. This may be happening with regard to Kirkland Lake.

With regard to the question of unemployment, we have an unemployment insurance office which several years ago was divided into branches, owing to the diversity of industry in the area covered. I thought this was fair and reasonable and worked to the advantage of the people it served. But it meant that the bush working population, which is a seasonally employed population, joined with the agricultural population and was transferred to the new unemployment insurance office at New Liskeard. The office at Kirkland Lake has been left with a stable work force, and therefore there is no unemployment.

You may be surprised to know that no young people register for employment at Kirkland Lake. This is because there are no jobs in Kirkland Lake available. These people know when they graduate from the institute in the area or from the vocational school or high school that if they are going to work, then they have to go to Toronto. Therefore they move to Toronto and get a job. They never register at Kirkland Lake. Perhaps we should have had everyone unemployed at Kirkland Lake register, and if this were done the unemployment figure would certainly triple immediately. These people are not stupid. They are well aware which jobs are available and they do not apply for jobs which do not exist. They do not want to become part of this statistic in which I see no sense.

Less than a year ago there was a bad accident in one of the mines in my area. These mines are over a mile in depth and have reached the economic limit of their productive capability. As soon as two men were killed last fall at one of the mines, it was closed. Two weeks ago there was a very bad bump at the Lakeshore mine and it was closed, except for salvage operations. This means that 600 people have been laid off. I have not been able to check the figures because I do not know where the figures will be found, but I bet that these 600 employees are probably one third of the total number of unemployed which Kirkland Lake had during the worst period over the last two or three years. I will bet that these 600 people do not register anywhere for employment, because the average age of the miners working in the gold mines at Kirkland Lake is 54. So where would they get a job? They have worked for 35 to 40 years underground in gold mines. Are they going to work on a farm or pick up a chain

June 29, 1965

Grants to Designated Areas saw and go into the bush? Are they going to become truck drivers or work on the railways? What kind of jobs can they apply for? So they do not register and become part of the statistics. Yet this Government is not smart enough to find some way to accommodate the people in that area who are not able to take advantage of employment in manufacturing industries and join the numbers who go to make up these statistics.

If any of these officials are in the galleries, there may be among them some of the smart young people who travel around, and I have met many of them. The Minister of Industry should be quite proud of the number of people he has been able to assemble, but they have not done a damned thing for places like Kirkland Lake. One official became quite interested in Kirkland Lake and I should like to read part of a letter which he wrote to the Kirkland Lake Industrial Commission after he returned to the Department. This young fellow was lent to the Prime Minister to help in the war on poverty. I do not know what that will mean, but there are many people in my area who would not consider Kirkland Lake to be a rapid growth area. They are well aware of the fact that Kirkland Lake, since its peak period between 1937 and 1942, has gone steadily downhill. This is what this official says:

Upon my return from Kirkland Lake, I conducted an Inquiry into the possibility of designating the territory administered by the National Employment Service Office of Kirkland Lake for the financial incentives program of the Area Development Agency and, as we had foreseen during our discussions last September, I found that there was no possibility of obtaining designation at that time. Moreover you will no doubt recall that I had indicated to you, during the same discussions, that the Area Development Agency Program for Designated Areas had been under review and that we would have to await the results of this review before further discussions along these lines could be entertained. This situation still exists. I do hope, however, that within a relatively short time we shall know whether or not the program, as it now exists, is to be modified.

At a further meeting we have had with them we were informed that it is not, and that this situation will not be corrected.

I believe that we should be more interested in people than in property. This is a capital incentive program. This program assists capital investment. It helps give to capital; but it really does not give to people. This is one of the most advantageous capital bolsters we have had for a long time, but it does not help the people to become employed in industry. We are merely adding incentive to capital; it is not given to people.

I am well aware there are other programs which do assist people, but this one does not. This program is a bolster to capitalists, something to which I have never dedicated myself, and I have never felt strongly about the capitalist system. Yet this Government gives $50 million to aid capital, having no regard for people or for communities which have been built up at terrific expense.

We have hospitals, schools, technical institutions, vocational schools, a dozen or more primary schools, a fire and police department equivalent to that employed by a community of 50,000 people, all paid for by 800 miners who are employed in that community. What is to be done about this situation? All the Minister suggests is that industry be located elsewhere, and we know that once industry is located in the suggested areas there will follow these increased demands for social capital. As one Member suggested, we are going to build these communities on the golden horseshoe basis.

[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)

Let us remember that we must keep industry close to the area of consumption. We all know, including the officials of the department, that there is not going to be a mill established to process the iron ore of northern Ontario because it is uneconomical. I do not think many people have complained about that fact, or about the fact that Jones and Laughlin is exporting the product to the United States, yet unable to build a steel mill in the Timiskaming area. Let us not forget, however, that we are not getting one red cent in royalties in this regard, but rather wages for 200 people. Has the Department of Industry given us any consideration because 300 people have been laid off this month? We have not been designated as a distressed area-hell, no. Instead of that, other areas where wages are 30 or 40 cents per hour higher have been so designated.

Timmins has been designated as a distressed area and the situation there is no different from that of Kirkland Lake, in spite of the fact that the situation in Timmins has changed considerably since the stock market took a jump. There are those who say we are not going to have a smelter in Timmins, but let me assure you that the people in the Timmins area will not continue to mine or sell their Texas-Gulf for export to the United States. We are interested in getting benefits equal to those received by other areas, and Kirkland Lake is not receiving equal benefits.

June 29, 1965

There is no justification for anyone who has half an eye, driven through that area and observed the situation there, wanting to create another Cobalt there.

Throughout northern Ontario and northern Quebec communities the people are having to provide increased capital services such as roads, sewers, sidewalks, police and fire protection. The people of those areas have provided the capital which has built and maintained the services to this time, and they deserve some assistance in the maintenance of those social capital expenditures, particularly when industry no longer exists. Other countries like Sweden have been able to develop initiatives in this field in deciding where industry should be located. They have been able to sit down and plan their economy.

You know yourself, Mr. Chairman, as a result of driving in the Toronto area that the many factories there this month which were not there last month require greatly expanded social capital services, and that this expansion of industry will require an equivalent expansion in transportation. These problems are always magnified by increases in industrial locations in an area.

Who was it provided the capital for the development of Elliot Lake? The federal Government provided $90 million for that area in the form of cash and tax exemptions for mining companies over a three-year period. Some of these companies did not spend one red cent in the development of this area. The Canadian Government supplied the money to build these plants. The situation has not proved economical so far as the miners are concerned. They spent their savings, worked there for a period of a few years and then had to move out, losing everything they had invested. Has the Department of Labour or the Department of Industry taken this into account?

The Minister of Industry and the Minister of Labour are well aware of the circumstances surrounding these mining areas, and every official of those departments knows of the situation that now exists. I refer to areas in the proximity of Renfrew, the head of the Lakes, particularly around Port Arthur, as well as other areas developed in the north because of an abundance of primary products, whether utilized by the forestry or mining industries.

If we are going to check this developing problem, it must be done now rather than wait for 150 years as was the case in the Maritime Provinces. Let me warn this House now that if there is any intention to pass

Grants to Designated Areas this legislation by July 1 without some consideration being given to the areas I have mentioned, if I can find any way to stop it, there will not be an adjournment for the summer recess for at least a month. The people of northern Ontario are worried about the situation and feel that steps should be taken to make their conditions at least equal to those of other similar areas.

Within the next two years there will be no gold mines left in northern Ontario. Surely the Minister cannot say that he is not interested in that fact. The Government of Canada has paid $10 million per year toward assisting the gold mining industry in these northern communities. Are they now to be abandoned? If that is the attitude taken by this Government, then what they are doing is honouring only the financial interests of the gold mining industry, the shareholders and others connected with this development, and disregarding the interests of the people who work in the industry. Is the Government prepared to say that? If it is not prepared to do so, then I suggest some change be made so that these areas of northern Ontario can be designated as depressed areas, small growth areas, distressed areas or designated areas. Let them be called by any name, but let them receive some assistance instead of being penalized by the attitude of this Government. They should receive treatment at least equal to that afforded other communities which have more advantages.

If the Government took the attitude I suggest it might not cost one red cent because, while I know of no industry which has gone into the designated areas of Timmins or Rouyn, I do know of several industries that will locate in the Timiskaming area when it becomes a designated area so that they can take advantage of that situation. Surely the Minister is fair enough to give the people of Timiskaming the opportunity of having a pulp mill or some other enterprise locate in that area. He can do so by treating them on an equal basis with those people of the areas to be designated.

The program as outlined by the Minister is not fair because the criteria set down by the Department of Labour are not adequate to take into consideration slow growth areas which, a few years ago, grew rather rapidly but then began to deteriorate. I am not suggesting for one minute that this Government should not consider those small towns which exist as a result of the agricultural industry, but I do feel that there has been a

3018 COMMONS

Grants to Designated Areas trend to ignore the rural communities in favour of the urban centres. This has in part led to the urbanization which has taken place in Canada.

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)

But we are talking about communities with a population of 20,000 which have all the necessary facilities already paid for. In many of these towns that have been built on the mining industry the municipal debt was paid off 10 or 20 years ago. We have the facilities but we do not have the growth and development that other communities have experienced.

We do not want to wait until the situation gets as bad as in the Maritimes. I do not want to represent an area that has died and for which we are trying to bring about some kind of rebirth. I want our area to be given assistance now, so it can continue to participate in the same way as the rest of Ontario. In that regard I would refer to this statement by one Ontario Government department:

The Department of Economics and Development stands ready at all times to help in this development-*

The development of northern Ontario.

-confident that by the proper utilization of our natural and human resources, by faith in the unity of our people, northeastern Ontario can play a most vital role in the fulfilling of Ontario's destiny.

We have helped to maintain Canada in the past. When citizens from every riding in Canada came to the gold mining areas of northern Ontario looking for work they received work and thus were able to maintain their families and help to maintain communities throughout Ontario, Quebec and many other parts of Canada. Now we are asking for equality of opportunity so that we can take advantage of the assistance given to other areas. If we are given this opportunity we will continue to play our part. I can assure hon. Members that there will be no cost to Canada in the end because the contribution we will make will be much greater than any assistance that may be extended to us through this legislation. If this is done we are prepared to support the legislation. If this kind of concession is not made I am prepared to fight the legislation in any way I can until it is made.

Mr. Greene:

Mr. Chairman, in listening to the hon. Member for Timiskaming I was reminded of how often, in listening to economic questions being debated at provincial political conventions over the years, I have heard northern Ontario representatives

DEBATES June 29, 1965

threaten to secede from the Province of Ontario and of how often I have heard eastern Ontario representatives say: If you are

leaving, for God's sake take us too.

I think the tragedy of the Province of Ontario lies in the fact that development has been centralized in the metropolitan area and in western Ontario and that generally speaking eastern Ontario and northern Ontario have been left as "the poor South" of this great and rich province. In his criticism of the results of the legislation I think there was inherent in the remarks of the hon. Member for Timiskaming the fact that the approach to the economic problems of the nation embodied in this type of legislation is a sound one. What he was complaining about was the fact that the interpretation of the legislation did not suit the particular needs of his people and, in line with his duty as a Member representing these people, he objected in the strongest possible terms to the application of the rules of the legislation. But in principle I think that he and the people of eastern Ontario would agree that the approach of providing a Federal incentive to areas of slow growth, high unemployment and a low rate of growth of employment is a sound one.

This is the first time in the history of this Dominion that this approach has been taken. As we are in many other areas, we in this country have been behind countries such as Italy, the United Kingdom and Sweden with regard to the decentralization of industry.

The hon. Member for Waterloo South said that the emphasis on decentralization should not be negative. In other words, it should not render the economy of the country inefficient in its application. I certainly think that none of us would wish to make Canada's economy inefficient. I take exception and disagree most violently with those ivory tower university economics professors who sit there in their shelter and say that the only way we can be efficient in this nation is to build two or three little Japans from one end of the country to the other, and that this is the only way we can compete in world markets. I say that economists who argue in this fashion negate the entire Canadian challenge. We have a great land mass and a small population and the challenge is: Can we in fact derive the social benefits of that great land mass and still be efficient economically? I think we can do so and I believe that for the first time the Government has recognized that principle by bringing in area development legislation under the Department of Industry.

June 29, 1965

We have not hidden our heads in the sand and said: Let the Japans grow and leave the rest of the land to lie fallow, because in that way we will be efficient. As I said, for the first time the Government of this country has said that this nation should be permitted to grow with some equitable distribution of the sources of production and the sources of employment so that there will not be first and second rate citizens as there are today, and so that we will at least try to minimize the gap between the mountains and the valleys in our economic picture.

I am one of those who disagree with the application of the program in its first stage. I think that the Government deserves credit for bringing in the program and for accepting this philosophy which will lead to the equalization of opportunity across this land, but I do think that we need to become more sophisticated in our approach to the problem. We need to approach it from a proper base and above all we need the courage to approach the problem, if need be, from a basis of common sense, on an ad hoc basis, if you like, on the basis of economic principles, yes, but not on the basis of political patronage at all.

I do not think any set of statistics, no matter how comprehensive they may be, can possibly determine whether a certain area (a) can usefully and economically assimilate industrial growth and (b) whether incentives will contribute to that useful economic growth. I do not think any set of figures, no matter how sophisticated and complex they may be, can provide the perfect answer. In the Ottawa valley there is a saying which I believe has spread throughout a considerable part of the country. It is that "figures don't lie but liars can figure". It may be we need to do a little more figuring in this particular area.

I think the problems of eastern and northern Ontario are similar and unique. I believe we must admit that the statistics and the criteria as they were evolved do injustice to those areas of slow growth in eastern Ontario and northern Ontario. In all fairness I must say that our unemployment picture and our lack of growth of employment are not as critical as in areas such as the Gaspe, part of the eastern townships and a great part of the Maritime Provinces.

The Chairman:

Order. It being six o'clock, pursuant to the provisions of subsection 3 of Standing Order 15 it is my duty to leave the Chair so that the House may proceed to the consideration of private Members' business.

Private Bills

Mr. Greene:

May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

It being six o'clock, the House will now proceed with the consideration of private Members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, public bills.

[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)

Hon. J. Watson MacNaught (Solicitor General):

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has referred two bills back to the House for consideration, Bill S-4 and Bill S-5. Could we have unanimous consent to deal with the committee stages of these two bills?

Agreed.

Mr. Lambert:

Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to make a brief statement. A week ago three of the petitioners, Messrs. Forster, Stewart, and Patrick, accompanied by its counsel and parliamentary agent, appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. They were examined at length. The Superintendent of Insurance, Mr. Humphrys, appeared and was questioned in some detail by members of the committee. The committee accepted the bill in its entirety without amendment. The Chairman of the Committee has reported back and I would now ask hon. Members to approve the bill clause by clause.

Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved

the second reading of Bill S-10, respecting the Trustee Board of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words before the motion for second reading is adopted, in order to explain the purposes of the bill to the Members of the House.

The Trustee Board of the Presbyterian Church in Canada was incorporated by chapter 64 of the Statutes of Canada 1939, for the purpose of acquiring, taking and holding and dealing with real and personal property of the church. There was only one amendment, and that was by chapter 23 of the Statutes of Canada 1962-63, which widened the field of investments to include investments in which a Canadian insurance company might invest, and granting power to establish plans for gratuities, pensions, superannuation, etc., for ministers or former ministers of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, and section 23 was added clarifying the references in the Act to the board of administration or the administrative council.

With respect to the purpose of the proposed legislation, at the present time the board consists of seven members established by act of incorporation. It is now desired to make provision for enlarging the number to a maximum of 15, and to provide that until otherwise determined by the general assembly of the church, the board shall consist of eight members.

It has been the practice to appoint the chairman of the administrative council and treasurer of the church to the board. It is desired to make these appointments mandatory, but if the treasurer of the church might at some future time become a permanent paid position, or alternatively might cease to exist under that name, then in either of these two events it is desired to appoint the person holding the position of chairman of the finance committee of the administrative council to the board in place of the treasurer, if that position were not a paid position.

[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)

The proposed legislation deals, first, with the membership of the board. In the second place it grants power to combine and consolidate in the hands of the board-to receive the income therefrom and to apportion the net income therefrom pro rata according to the respective interests therein among such

trusts, institutions, organizations, schemes and funds, provided that no such moneys or investments shall be consolidated, if by the terms of the instrument under which they are held they are specifically directed to be administered separately. It also gives power to employ investment counsel or other professional advisers.

In the third place it provides for the enactment and repeal of bylaws, regulations, etc., the power of the general assembly to delegate power and revoke such delegation.

Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Pursuant to Standing Order 105 the said bill is now referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.