1938-03-10

Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) drew attention to the fact that in the file relating to a proposal for transfer of the Yukon territory to British Columbia the correspondence was incomplete. Upon looking it up, I found that the order calls for correspondence from April 1. There were a few letters exchanged in March, and I table them herewith.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Has Mr. N. B. McLean, M.E.I.C., chief engineer, been retired from the government service ?
[Mr. Rogers.!
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	Who has been appointed in his place?
4.	What are the new appointee's qualifications?
5.	How was he appointed?
6.	On whose recommendation?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Mr. N. B. McLean, former chief engine?-. St. Lawrence ship channel work, is on leave, preparatory to superannuation.
2.	Superannuation leave expires July 1, 1938.
3.	Mr. J. E. St. Laurent.
4.	Graduate engineer, university of Montreal; twenty-eight years' service with department of public works of Canada, on construction and dredging work.
5.	By promotion and transfer.
6.	Appointment by civil service commission.


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Did the government purchase any new equipment in the form of barges, dredges or floating equipment for use in connection with the St. Lawrence ship channel project during the past ten years?
2.	If so, what is the designation, date of purchase, and total cost of each item?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Purchased: "Leon S." (D.T. No. 7) gas launch, $12,155.
(b) Built by contract: Hopper barge No. 5, 1930, $226,428; outboard motor launch, 1930, $85; 4 floats, 1931, SI,200; gas launch (D.T. No. 5), 1928, $6,850.
'[DOT]'CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD OPERATIONS, 1935


AND 1936
Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Does the government intend to take any action in respect of the $9,628,881.31 profit obtained on the sale by the Canadian wheat board of the wheat taken over by the said board from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited on December 2, 1935?
2.	Does the government consider that the loss of said board in its operations in respect of the 1935 and 1936 wheat crops in the total sum of $11,907,679.06 should be charged against the profit above referred to?


Mr. EULER:: Mr. Speaker, as this question involves a matter of government policy I submit it is not a suitable question for the order paper.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.

Questions


PICTOU, N.S., WHARFINGER
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	(a) What is the name of the wharfinger for the port of Pietou, Nova Scotia; (b) when was he appointed; (c) what amount of money has he received each year in payment for his services ?
2.	(a) What amount of money has the government received from wharfage fees yearly during his term of office; (b) what was the amount of shipping on which wharfage was charged during the years 1936-37?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	(a) G. B. McLaren; (b) 25th November, 1935; (c) 1935-36, $152.22; 1936-37, $560.53; 1937-38, $668.69.
2.	(a) Gross collections-1935-36, $548.16; 1936-37, $3,270.34; 1937-38, $3,991.26.
(b) For the year 1936-37 of gross collections, $3,270.34 the top wharfage amounted to $1,173.39. The only quantities available from the returns of goods shipped over the wharves are:-9,135,000 feet, deal measure, and 1,699,000 feet, B.M. lumber; 750 bu. potatoes; 1,400 tons pulp; 855 puncheons, 237 bbls., 1201 bbls. molasses; 53,710 gals, petroleum products; and 1,814 tons fertilizer.
For the year 1937-38 of gross collections, $3,991.26-the top wharfage amounted to $1,546.50. The only quantities available from the returns of goods shipped over the wharves are:-8,739,000 feet, deal measure, lumber;
3,000	bu. potatoes; 356 puncheons, 206 bbls. 1701 bbls. molasses; 26,900 gals, petroleum product; 3,694 tons fertilizer; 25 tons gravel; 67 tons scrap iron and coal; 579 tons oyster shells.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	What tonnage of Canadian National Railways fuel coal has been delivered at Chipman, New Brunswick, for the years 1937 and 1938?
2.	For how long a time are Canadian National Railways cars supplied to the Canadian Pacific Railways at that point for fuel coal without charge ?
3.	W'hat demurrage or per diem has been received for Canadian National Railways cars supplied at that point?
4.	What is the total cost per ton, all charges included, of fuel coal delivered at Chipman?


Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	What was the total cost of building the Canadian National Railways spur from Hardwood Ridge to North Minto, New Brunswick?
2.	What is the cost of maintenance of this spur for the years 1936 and 1937?
3.	What was the cost of supplying locomotive and van?
4.	What demurrage or per diem is received on Canadian National ears supplied at North Minto, New Brunswick?
5.	How long are these cars allowed to be kept without any charge?
6.	What agreement was made for shipping commercial coal over this spur when it was built?
7.	Has this agreement been lived up to? If not, for what reasons?
8.	What tonnage of Canadian National Railways fuel coal has been moved over this spur?
9.	What was the cost of this coal at Hardwood Ridge, all charges included?


Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	During the year 1936-1937 and January and February, 1938, what tonnage of fuel coal was supplied the Canadian National Railways, by months, from each of the following districts: (a) Maccan; (b) Springhill; (c) New Glasgow; (d) other Nova Scotia districts?
2.	What price is paid for Nova Scotia coal f.o.b. cars Canadian National Railways tracks at above districts?
3.	What is the cost per ton mile for hauling fuel coal from Nova Scotia to New Brunswick points?
4.	At what points in New Brunswick was the above mentioned Nova Scotia coal used, and what tonnage of each?
5.	What is the policy of the Canadian National Railways in buying fuel coal?
6.	Is competition developed between operators and districts, and all compelled to accept the lowest price offered?
7.	Is any consideration given to the possibility of paying a proper standard of wages?
8.	How much Canadian National Railways fuel coal is purchased in Nova Scotia for use in: (a) New Brunswick; (b) Nova Scotia; (c) Quebec; (d) Ontario?
9.	How much New Brunswick coal is purchased for use in each of the above provinces?


Mr. HOWE:: The management of the Canadian National Railways advise me that these three questions, 15, 16 and 17, refer to matters affecting the internal management of the Canadian National Railways, which it is not the practice to answer.


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-ALBERTA
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	In what year did the province of Alberta enter into agreement with the government of the Dominion of Canada for the policing of that province by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	(a) What sums of money were paid yearly by the province to the dominion government for this service; (b) what sums of money were collected yearly by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in that province and paid directly to the dominion government?
Question as Order for Return

3.	What has been the total yearly strength of all ranks from the beginning of contract in the province?
4.	(a) How many of the personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police presently stationed in Alberta were members of the old Alberta provincial police force; (b) what are their names, ranks and present salaries?
5.	When was the present contract between the Alberta government and the dominion signed ?
6.	How long has that contract still to run?
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East); There was an agreement in 1905, when the province of Alberta was created, for the policing of that province by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This agreement was effective until 1918. In that year the province created its own police force and had it in operation until 1932, when a new agreement was entered into and is still in force. I suppose the hon. member has in mind the second agreement, and if that is so, I shall be pleased to answer; otherwise it will take a very long time and much work to answer as regards the past, between 1905 and 1917.


Mr. MARSHALL:: What the minister suggests will be quite satisfactory.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What were the number of bushels of wheat in storage at Fort Churchill during the seasons 1935-36, 1936-37, 1937-38?
2.	What was the amount of wheat in each of the above seasons held by the Canadian wheat board at Fort Churchill?
3.	What were the amount of storage charged against same, the names of the parties to whom sold by the Canadian wheat board, and the quantities in each case, during the above years?


WENTWORTH COUNTY RIFLE RANGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth); I wish to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). Will the rifle range that is to be constructed in Wentworth county be a 1,000 yard range?
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: This question has been referred to headquarters of Military District No. 2, and, with the concurrence of the nonpermanent active militia, it has been recommended that the range be 800 yards. If necessary, however, it can be extended to 1,000 yards.



PRIVILEGE-MR. PERLEY FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ON LIVE STOCK SHIPPED TO FEEDING GROUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: On February 10 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), on a question of privilege, read three telegrams into Hansard, the third of them being found on page 317. It is a telegram from the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Saskatchewan and reads:
Hon. J. G. Gardiner,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Both Laidlaw applications investigated and recommended by municipal secretary and our district representative. Schuster came to Regina to complete freight arrangements after his application had been approved by municipality. Laidlaw until recently tenant of Perley but declines to continue. Municipality advanced seed and supplies to value of four hundred eighty-two dollars fifty-four cents in 1937, being about half amount desired by tenant and landlord. Termination of tenancy by Laidlaw may partly explain criticism. Understand tenancy has been unprofitable throughout to Laidlaw which reduced him to circumstances necessitating aid in shipment of live stock out.
On hearing that telegram read I felt sure that the greater part of it was not a statement of fact, that it was incorrect, and I therefore wrote to the secretary of the municipality.


Mr. GARDINER:: On a point of order, I understood according to the ruling given that it was not permissible to read telegrams with reference to this particular matter, and I do hope that if the hon. member is going to be allowed to read a telegram now I shall have an opportunity to get one and read it.


Ernest Edward Perley: This is a question of
privilege. The minister himself read several telegrams, and this is somewhat different from the point he is trying to make. I directed to the secretary of the municipality the following letter:
February 10, 1938.
Mr. Clifford Hunt, Sec.,
Rural Municipality,
Wolseley, Sask.
Mr. Gardiner and I have had some little altercation in the house and I would like a little information from you in order to verify a statement I made.
You will remember that last November when David Laidlaw was shipping out his cattle and horses to Manitoba, he made application for free freight and the question I want to know is, did he make application to the municipality to approve of his getting free freight and did the municipality recommend same and did George E. Biden approve of same. Also give me particulars with respect to the fourth car

Privilege-Mr. Perley
they shipped in the name of Wilfred Laidlaw. Did the municipality approve of his application for free freight and did Biden approve of it? As I understand it, the municipality did not approve or recommend the application of David Laidlaw for three cars and later the application of Wilfred Laidlaw for one car was turned down.
Please send me a night letter in reply to this giving me the particulars, sending collect to me at the House of Commons. Call Mr. Platt the reeve and get his approval of your statements in wire.
In reply to the foregoing communication I received the following letter rather than a telegram:
February 14, 1938.
E. E. Perley, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
In reply to your letter of the 10th instant I would advise that Mr. Laidlaw first went to Regina to the Department of Agriculture and requested from them freight assistance to ship out three cars of stock to Manitoba for winter feed. The Department of Agriculture referred him back to this office and this application was not presented to the council for their approval. I signed the recommendation and it was later signed by Mr. Biden and he was granted free freight on three cars.
Later, Wilfred Laidlaw made application for free freight on one car and I pointed out that if this stock was owned by David Laidlaw then he would not be able to get the required assistance as the maximum assistance given by the department was on three cars and he had already had this assistance. I believe, however, that Wilfred Laidlaw was later given assistance in shipping out one carload. I cannot recall Wilfred Laidlaw's car ever having gone through this office. I do not believe I signed same and I gave the matter no more thought until I received your letter yesterday. Wilfred Laidlaw did suggest that he might possibly pay the freight out on this car himself.
Yours truly,
C. J. Hunt.
On February 11, as will be found at page 359 of Hansard, the matter was again brought to the attention of the house by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who took exception to a personal reference in the telegram. Altogether apart from the matter of feed and seed he took exception to it on the ground that it was a personal reference. In reply the Minister of Agriculture made the following statement, which will be found at page 360:
In reply to that statement the telegram merely says that the hon. member himself together with Mr. Laidlaw made application to the government for consideration in relation to seed in the spring of last year.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I could not understand that statement and I directed another letter to the secretary of the municipality as follows-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. I would refer Your Honour to the ruling given on page 382 of Hansard of the present session. That ruling applied distinctly to the hon. member who is now speaking and to the Minister of Agriculture as well, and it was held that such comments from outside cannot properly be made.


Mr. BENNETT:: That is not what is being dealt with. The Minister of Agriculture read into the record, improperly, I thought, a communication from the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan, which communication directly attacked one of the members of this house. The hon. member is now merely clearing up that statement, and to preclude anyone from saying that he has not done it completely, he is reading a communication he sent in order that the answer may be understood. He is reading it so that it cannot be said that he has left out any part of the record. That is the position. Surely it is one of the privileges of a member of this house to take advantage of an opportunity such as this to put himself right when a statement has been made, reported in Hansard, by one not a member of this house, regarding himself. The hon. member has had no opportunity except this, and it is the highest privilege of a member of this house to place his position before the house when he is attacked by one not a member.


Mr. POULIOT:: Please read between the lines now.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: On the point of order, I did not raise a question because I thought we would waste valuable time discussing it. On a question of privilege an hon. member is entitled to rise in his place and make his own position clear by denial, or something equivalent thereto, but not to make a speech, bringing into his remarks outside comments, letters, telegrams or anything of that kind. The hon. gentleman is making a full fledged speech on this question of privilege. This is the first time I have seen this done, and especially affirmed as a right.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the hon. member has a right, as the Minister of Justice and other hon. members have said, to state his point of order and make his position clear; but I do not think, in view of the decision I rendered some time ago, that it is his right to put into the record documents and letters and telegrams from persons outside the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is taking place at the moment is merely an explanation to clear up a situation which never should have arisen,
Privilege-Mr. Perley

because the ruling of the Speaker is that the telegram from Mr. Taggart should not have been on the record. It is because it is improperly on the record that the effort is now made to clear it up, and on which the question of privilege arises.


Ernest Lapointe: It is twice wrong, or perhaps three times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Put yourself in his position.


Ernest Edward Perley: On hearing the last statement I directed the following letter to Mr. Hunt:
Would you please let me have by return mail-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: I asked the municipality for a statement as to whether they had supplied seed grain in 1935, 1936 and 1937 to Mr. Laidlaw. The reply was this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, the reply was to the effect that they had not supplied Mr. Laidlaw with one bushel of seed during the years 1936 or 1937, nor one dollar's worth of feed. That is the reply signed by the secretary of the municipality.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the statement I have made so far proves conclusively that the telegram with respect to providing free freight and seed to Mr. Laidlaw was incorrect and was not a statement of fact. The latter part of the wire was more or less a personal attack on me, or was injected into the wire for the purpose of doing me a personal injury. I do not for one moment think that the Minister of Agriculture would desire to do that knowingly; not at all, and I am not charging him with that. But I am saying that he was grossly misinformed.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member, in view of your ruling, is putting me in an impossible position, because I cannot reply. I should like to suggest that there is a proper opportunity for him to discuss this matter. When my estimates are before the house he can put on the record everything he is now seeking to put on, and I shall be quite prepared to deal with it at that time.


Ernest Edward Perley: I want to refer to the concluding paragraph of the wire, which relates to myself.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. If this is a question of privilege, I think the hon. member ought to be satisfied now, and if he desires to say anything further, when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are before the house he can deal fully with the whole matter again. He has stated his point.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has explained his point of privilege.


Ernest Edward Perley: As a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to delete the latter part of that wire from the records of this house. I do so because it was injected for the purpose of doing me an injury. I am drawing your attention to the ruling you made on February 14, recorded on page 382. In the concluding paragraph you said:
The house may be indulgent in these matters but it is a well known principle that a statement made in this house cannot be contradicted by a statement made by a person who is not a member of the house.
I therefore suggest that you delete the latter part of that wire, which has personal reference to me, from the records of the house.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I should like to direct an inquiry to the government through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). In view of the fact that the current fiscal year terminates exactly three weeks from now, and licences for radio receiving sets ordinarily must be purchased before that time, I wish to ask two questions:
1.	Does the government intend to rescind before March 31 of this year the recent order in council increasing the licence fee for radio sets and otherwise altering its application?
2.	Has the government given consideration to the suggestion which I made in this house on February 1 last that the licence fee be entirely abolished?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Both these questions involve matters of government policy. The policy of the government in regard to both matters will be made known in due course.

Electric Power Export



VALIDITY OF QUEBEC STATUTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to address to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), a question of which I have already given him notice. It is as follows:
In the light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada stating that the Alberta act called Bill No. 9, which restricted publication of news, is ultra vires a provincial legislature, and particularly in view of the reasons for judgment of the various judges, as, for example, the words of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Davis, that the "right of free
public discussion of public affairs..is the
breath of life for parliamentary institutions," can the Minister of Justice give assurance that the Quebec "padlock law" will shortly be either disallowed or referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision as to its validity as a provincial enactment?


Ernest Lapointe: I can only make to my hon. friend the same answer as I made to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier), and I may say that it is a standard answer which will be given to all possible similar questions. Any recommendations which it will be the duty of the Minister of Justice to make with regard to this or any other provincial legislation and with regard to any petition concerning this legislation, will be made to the governor in council. My hon. friend will understand that I could not give to him or to any other member of the house any information or intimation as to what that recommendation will be.



ELECTRIC POWER


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, to amend the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill which is now before the house for second reading implements the undertaking which was given in the speech from the throne on January 27 to the effect that legislation would be introduced with a view to furthering the principle of parliamentary control of the export of electric power. On the first reading of the bill, on February
11, I outlined its scope and purposes, but it might be well at this time to repeat what was then said.
While the bill in form constitutes a general amendment and recasting of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, which has not heretofore been amended since it was passed in 1907, in substance its object is to transfer to parliament itself the power at present legally vested in the governor in council to control all export of electric power from this country. The bill does not affect the licences to export power which have already been granted, nor does it take from the governor in council the right to renew or cancel the existing licences. It does provide that no further exports of power may be made unless they are specifically authorized by a private act of parliament. An exception to this rule is made only in the event of a temporary international emergency, and only for the duration of such an emergency.
The house will recall that in 1928 the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) introduced a bill in this house to amend the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. The bill was given first and second reading at that session but did not get beyond the committee stage. In the following year, 1929, the hon. member for Leeds reintroduced the bill, which was given all three readings in this house with practically no discussion. * The bill went to the senate, where it was given first and second readings. After the second reading, while the bill was in committee in the senate, some information was requested with respect to the number of licences that had been already issued, together with other data which hon. members of the senate desired to obtain. It was not possible to secure that information in time for consideration before the session prorogued. As a result the bill introduced by my hon. friend did not become law.
What I should like particularly to bring to the attention of the house is that in 1929 all members of this house, regardless of party, accepted the principle of parliamentary control of the export of electrical energy. That was the underlying, essential principle in my hon. friend's bill. The original act with respect to the exportation of power from Canada was enacted in 1907. From 1907 up to the present time that act has not been amended. The amendment which the hon. member for Leeds proposed in 1928 and 1929 would have taken away the power which at present resides in the governor in council to issue licences, and would have transferred that power to parliament. It was the approval of parliament that my hon. friend desired should be
Electric Power Export
[Stage Direction]
given in respect to all future licences for the exportation of power. The principle contained in the present bill is the same as that which appeared in the bill of the hon. member for Leeds in 1928 and 1929. It is the principle not of completely prohibiting, under all circumstances, the exportation of power from Canada, but rather of making a general prohibition, subject to exemptions by approval of parliament.
The present bill, however, is a little different from that introduced by my hon. friend. It is not different in principle: the principle is the same,, as I have indicated, the direct control of parliament over further export of power from Canada. But inasmuch as the legislation has not been amended since it was originally introduced in 1907, the present measure seeks to recast the legislation by separating those provisions which have to do with the export of electrical energy from those which have to do with the export of fluids, such as gases, oil and water. The provisions with respect to fluids are in no way changed but are placed by themselves in the bill. The provisions with respect to the export of electrical energy are likewise placed by themselves. A change is made in the provisions with respect to the export of electrical energy, in the manner that I have indicated.
My hon. friend's bill merely provided for the approval of parliament. It did not indicate in what particular form that approval should be given. Approval might have been given, under my hon. friend's bill, by resolution of this house or by a private act. The government has thought it preferable at this time to make provision for the approval of parliament being given specifically in a private act. One reason for preferring a private act to a resolution is that a resolution is not law. It would leave the legal position just as it is to-day; the governor in council would still have the power to grant licences. On each occasion the governor in council would simply have to wait until a resolution of both houses had been passed. But a private act has this advantage over a resolution; it enables the parties desiring to secure a licence for the export of power to make formal application, to present their views to a committee of the house and -to have the house view the matter in a judicial as well as a legislative manner.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman a question? Does he realize that a resolution, if it is to mean approval by parliament, cannot be effective unless it is in the form of a bill-because then it is a resolution not of both houses of parliament but of parliament itself, which is all three estates.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My right hon. friend is giving an interpretation which I had not thought had been placed on my hon. friend's bill in the first instance. This house passes many resolutions without enacting legislation as a result. On the other hand, very frequently the house enacts legislation as the result of a resolution, and certainly I had assumed that my hon. friend's bill would have made it possible for the approval of parliament to be given by a resolution- I mean a resolution approved by both houses of parliament. As the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has just indicated, an act would require the assent of the crown as well as action on the part of both houses. However, a resolution on the part of both houses might have been a course for which the present administration could have provided in this measure, had they desired to do so. We preferred, as I have said, in order to ensure that parliament would exercise its judicial as well as its legislative functions and powers, to proceed with the granting of licences by means of private acts rather than in any other way.
There is a third reason why it is preferable that the approval of both houses should be given in the form of a private act rather than in the form of a resolution; it is very difficult to draft into a resolution the specific terms which it might be advisable to have inserted with respect to any licences that might be granted.
My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition raised a point at the time of the first reading of the bill to which perhaps I ought to direct attention at once; that is, that the government should proceed by means of a public bill rather than a private bill. May I say to my right hon. friend that I am unable to follow him in his suggestion in that regard. At the time he spoke, I thought he was correcting me on a matter of terminology, but I see that he had something more in mind. As he knows, a public bill sets forth a general policy and makes the general provision with respect to the subject with which it deals. A private bill is in the nature of an exemption from a general law, and that is what the government desires to effect with respect to future authorization for the exportation of power. The measure before the house is a public bill providing that, except by private act, no further export of power can take place from Canada, other than under the exceptions in the bill itself, which are restricted to licences which have already been granted from year to year.
In support of what I have just said I would direct the attention of my right hon. friend

Electric Power Export
and members of the house to the citations in reference to private bills as indicated in Beauehesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. I quote first paragraph 840:
The object of a private bill is to alter the law relating to some particular locality or to confer rights on, or relieve from liability, some particular person or body of persons.
And paragraph 847:
The object of a private bill is, in fact, to obtain a privilegium-that is to say, an exception from the general law, or a provision for something which cannot be obtained by means of the general law, whether that general law is contained in a statute or is common law.
The present bill, if it passes both houses and is assented to by the crown, will be the general law. In order that hereafter any person or corporation or other body may obtain authorization to export electrical energy, he or it will have to come to parliament for a private bill granting that authority.
May I supplement what appears in Beau-chesne by the following, which is taken from Ilbert's Legislative Methods and Forms, 1901, at page 28. Ilbert is a recognized authority in matters affecting legislative methods and forms.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was clerk of the House of Commons in Great Britain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I quote:
A public bill is introduced as a measure of public policy in which the whole community is interested, and originates on the motion of some member of the house in which the bill is introduced.
The object of a private bill is, in fact, to obtain a privilegium-that is to say, an exception from the general law, or a provision for something which cannot be obtained by means of the general law, whether that general law is contained in a statute or is common law.
Private and public bills differ not merely in the mode of origination, but in the mode of procedure for passing them. In the case of a private bill the rules of the standing orders of the two houses as to the giving of certain notices and the deposit of bills before a certain date must be complied with, in order that all persons may have notice if their private interests are affected. Each bill is considered by a select committee of each house, who hear the promoters and opponents by counsel, consider their private interests, and determine, in a quasi-judicial capacity, whether the promoters of the bill have justified their request for a privilegium, and whether private interests are properly protected.
The officers of the house and the different government departments watch private bills from the point of view of the public interest, and call the attention of the select committee to matters affecting that interest. The House of Commons also appoint annually a special committee on police and sanitary regulation 51952-76
bills, for the purpose of guarding against the insertion of enactments inconsistent with the general law.
Subject to these provisions for the protection of public interests, the proceedings on a private bill resemble more closely private litigation between the parties interested than a discussion on questions of public policy, though, as each bill has to go through the same stages in the whole house as a public bill, there is an opportunity for members to raise at those stages questions of public policy in respect of the bill.
When my right hon. friend raised the point on February 11, with respect to the term "private bill," I thought it well to ask the Deputy Minister of Justice if he would give me a written opinion on the matter. As the right hon. gentleman had raised the point, I thought it would be of some importance. May I now supplement the authorities I have read by the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice. The communication is dated at Ottawa, February 12, 1938, and reads:
Dear Mr. King,
With reference to the observation of the right honourable the leader of the opposition that a bill to authorize the export of power could hardly be designated a private bill but would be a public bill of a private nature, I beg to advise you as follows:
The question whether a bill should be classified as private or public, of course, depends upon the object thereof. The object of a private bill is to alter the law relating to some particular locality or to confer rights on or relieve from liability some particular person or body of persons. The object of a private bill is to obtain an exception from the general law.
If it is contemplated that the export of power in future is to be permitted in the same manner and circumstances as in the case of licenses under the present law, I would think that any such privilege under or exception from the general law prohibiting export would be an object which would properly be dealt with by means of a private bill resulting in a private act. The boundary line between public and private bills is a narrow one and since no conclusive definition or test exists for determining doubtful cases, individual opinions may differ.
My understanding wTas that the private bills procedure was considered to be peculiarly appropriate for dealing with applications to export power. Being initiated by petition to parliament, the proceedings partake of both judicial and legislative character. The promoters appear as suiters while those who apprehend injury are admitted as adverse parties. Petitions in favour of or in opposition to such a bill may be received at any time while the bill is under consideration.
My view is that the granting of an exception to the general law prohibiting export is comparable for example to the case of a loan company being excepted from the operation of the Money Lenders' Act; such exceptions are created by a private act.
Yours truly,
W. Stuart Edwards, Deputy Minister of Justice.

Electric Power Export

I would say, therefore, in connection with what is contemplated under the present measure, that, hereafter, parties proposing or desiring to obtain authorization for the export of power will have to proceed, for example, in exactly the same manner as persons interested in securing from parliament a charter to establish a bank or build a railway. They will have to follow the procedure for private bills, and thereby enable all parties interested to be heard, before any final decision is reached with respect to the measure in question.
There is a further consideration I should like to mention at this time. It is a reason why it would seem desirable to have the matter of the future export of electrical power removed from the control of the governor in council and placed under some other authority. The reason is not new; it was advanced in 1907, at the time the original bill was enacted, by Sir Robert Borden, who at the time, was leader of the opposition. The then Minister of Justice, Sir Allen Aylesworth, who had the legislation in hand, was not unfavourably impressed by the suggestion.
It was pointed out by Sir Robert Borden that the governor in council is necessarily concerned with matters largely of a political nature. He felt that the governer in council was not equipped to handle matters of administration as effectively as some other bodies, and necessarily the governor in council would have to be guided by the advice of individual officers in the public service. Apart from that, attention was drawn to the fact that, under our constitutional practice, council is composed of members of one political party, and, in dealing with a matter of this kind it might be assumed, although not necessarily so, that the action of the governor in council was being influenced by political reasons. That possibility would be removed altogether if the power were taken away hereafter from the governor in council. I may say, however, that there has been nothing in the thirty years since the act was passed to give reason to believe that there had been the slightest political motive or consideration behind the granting of any licences. Nevertheless, I think the point is one which deserves consideration and I must say that personally I rather favour the suggestion which was made at the time, that these matters of the export of electrical power and energy should be made the subject of review by a body such as the railway commission, or the transport commission as it is now known, which would deal with them as it does with other matters already under its jurisdiction.
When that proposal was made in 1907, it was urged that the railway commission had about all that it could attend to and that

without reorganization it would not be advisable to add to its duties. No government from that time up to the present has thought it necessary to make the suggested change. However, something in the nature of a public utilities commission will, I believe, sooner or later become necessary. It might well be that we should have in mind the possible transfer to such a body of jurisdiction in the granting of future authorizations for the export of power. It may be of interest to the house to have before it the words used by Sir Robert Borden at the time with respect to this matter. They will be found at pages 4635 and 4636 of Hansard of March 13, 1907. Sir Robert said:
The other objection is that the governor in council is about the worst body that could be found for the purpose of dealing with such a matter. I say that for two reasons; in the first place, because the governor in council is not composed of persons having any special knowledge of the conditions which should control the export. It is composed of men who are very much taken up and occupied with their political as distinguished from their administrative duties. For that reason one would not anticipate that any administration-I am not speaking especially of the present administration-would be a very competent or capable body to deal with a question of this kind. The answer may be that they would be governed by the report of some officer, but when we are confronted by that answer, then, there is another consideration.
That is the consideration that the governor general in council under our system is and necessarily must be a partisan body. It represents presumably a majority of the people of this country and it certainly must always represent a majority of the members of parliament. It is a partisan body, it acts as a partisan body and you will have entrusted to the governor general in council under the provisions of section 5, very delicate questions indeed, questions which concern the material advantage of their political friends, questions which concern the material advantage of their political opponents; and it does not seem to me that it is wise to entrust so delicate a power as this must necessarily be to a body of that kind.
As I have already intimated, the then Minister of Justice Sir Allen Aylesworth rather agreed with Sir Robert Borden in the point of view he expressed, but no action was taken to change the method by which licences would be granted. I bring this suggestion before the house at the .moment because I feel that in the existing situation it is important that hon. members should realize that the only desire of the government is to further the public interest and to ensure that there shall not be in reality or to appearances, directly or indirectly, the determination of the export of electrical energy from any partisan political motive.
It .might help the house better to appreciate the stand which the government has taken

Electric Power Export
with regard to some recent applications which have been made to the governor in council for the export of electrical energy if I were briefly to review the discussions which have taken place in this house on this all-important question. I shall try not to detain the house at too great length in this review, but to indicate in brief outline the essential features of the more important discussions, and in particular statements of policy as they have been put forth by different administrations in dealing with the question of the export of power. As already mentioned, the first debate of any importance on the subject was that which took place in 1907 when the existing legislation was enacted. I shall not go into the arguments which were put forward at that time, although I shall refer to one or two of them when I come to sum up the reasons which may be urged for and against the granting of licences for the export of power when there is a surplus of power available.
From 1907 on, for many years, there appears to have been very little in the way of discussion in parliament on this subject. In 1914 an important order in council was passed as a result of certain statements which had been made by the Public Service Commission of the state of New York to the effect that the termination of existing exports of power from Canada would paralyse the business and industry in the United States which had become dependent upon Canadian sources of power. I shall refer to that order in council later on as it sets forth reasons which are very important in considering the advisability of exporting power. The 1914 order in council will be found set forth at page 104 of the white paper recently tabled. It was not until 1925 that any extended discussion took place in this house on the question.
In 1925, the matter came before the house in connection with the placing of a duty on the export of power. In that year an effort was being made to develop the Carillon power site. Considerable discussion took place on the question of the export of the power which might be generated as a result of that project. Delegations made representations to the government with respect to the matter. In that year also a resolution was introduced into this house by Mr. LeSueur, the member for Lambton West. This resolution had an important bearing on the policies adopted at that time and thereafter, and I shall refer to it more particularly in a moment.
In the next year, 1926, a significant act was passed by the legislature of Quebec prohibiting the export of power from that province. That act was amended in 1933 to permit exports in 51952-761
certain cases. I shall have occasion to refer to both these measures .when I come to set forth the reasons for and against the export of power. There was, however, no discussion in this house in 1926 on the export of power problem.
In 1927 the Beauharnois development was projected. There was some discussion on matters relating to waterways, but there was no discussion of importance on the subject of the export of power. In 1928, however, the Beauharnois company made an application to the government for the approval of plans in connection with the Beauharnois project. This served to bring to the fore the question of the possible export of power from Beauharnois once that development had been completed. As I have mentioned, it was in that year that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), who was then, as he is now, a member of the opposition, introduced the bill to which I have referred. At that session the measure received only two readings. In the following session the bill' was re-introduced early in the year and passed by this house without debate. There was, however, in the year, considerable discussion on the St. Lawrence waterway development, and with respect to the approval of the plans of the Beauharnois company. From that time until 1933 there will not, I believe, be found in Hansard references to this question, other than some of a cursory character made by members during the debates on the address or the debates on the budget, expressing their views as to the general policy that should be followed with respect to the export of power. The present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) did make one or two references as to the views of his government. I shall bring those references to the attention of the house.
From sketching it thus in outline, it will be seen that the main discussions on the question on the export of power took place between 1925 and 1929. There had been little discussion in the years between 1907 and 1925 and very little discussion from 1929 until the present year. A Liberal administration, as hon. members will recall, was in office from 1921 until 1930, except for a short intervening period when the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was in office. Such discussions as took place in that period occasioned declarations on the part of the government of the day as to its policy with respect to the export of power. I intend to give to the house these declarations and the circumstances which occasioned them.
Electric Power Export

While my right hon. friend was in office from 1930 to 1935, he did not introduce any legislation on this subject. He accepted, I think, the view which was generally held at the time the bill of the hon. member for Leeds passed this house, namely that all parties were agreed upon the policy that there should not be further export of power from Canada without some form of parliamentary approval.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No new licences were
issued.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my right
hon. friend says, no new licences were issued. The same was true of what has taken place since the present administration came again into office in 1935. From that year to the present time we have issued no new licences of any importance but have confined the action of the governor in council to renewing year by year the licences which had been previously granted.
In the early part of last year, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), speaking in a discussion in this house on the export of power, set forth the view of the government as understood by him at the time, namely that further licences should not be granted without the consideration of each case on its merit; that there should be not a blanket prohibition, but a policy of prohibition admitting of exceptions where the circumstances of the case justified. That was the position when the present administration received, in the summer and autumn of last year, three applications for export of power, two from the province of Quebec and one from the province of Ontario.
Before I discuss the three applications, I should like to supplement what I have said by reference to declarations of policy and opinion as they were made in this house in regard to the various matters to which I have referred. First of all, in the debate which took place on the imposition of an export duty in 1925, a statement was made by the Hon. Charles Stewart, who was at that time Minister of the Interior, and as such had particularly to do with water power questions. Mr. Stewart, speaking in this house on March 30, 1925, stated the position of the government as follows:
There is a law upon the statute book at the moment authorizing us to issue licences for only one year, and so far as I can ascertain that is all that the government intend to do in that direction. Whatever their intention may be, as a member of the government I have not heard of any change of policy. What I do say is that notwithstanding the fact that we have only developed to the extent of three million odd horsepower out of a possible development of forty-one million horsepower, I think it is good business to keep the cheap power in

Canada for the development of Canadian industry, and I see no objection, and my hon. friend opposite sees no objection, to the imposition of an export duty.
That, as I have indicated, was the one important pronouncement made in that debate.
A little later in the year a delegation from the Ottawa valley on behalf of the National Hydro Electric Company waited on the government to advocate the export of
300,000	horse power from the development at Carillon. That delegation was received by the Right Hon. George P. Graham, the Hon. Charles Murphy and myself. We gave to the delegation the promise of consideration of their request, but no assurance was given that any additional licences would be granted. It may be of interest to the house to know the government's view as expressed to the delegation. I have to give it as it appeared in the local press, as the delegation was received at my office and the record of its proceedings does not, of course, appear on Hansard. The Ottawa Citizen of May 5, 1925, under the heading, "Places Interest of Canada First on Power Issue," reads as follows:-
Premier King Says This Chief Consideration in Reaching Decision on Export Question.
Deputation Urges Carillon Scheme.
Prime Minister Says It's National Problem. Cabinet to Discuss It.
That the future of Canada would be the first consideration in the question of permitting the export of electrical energy to United States was stated by the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon in replying to a large and representative delegation from the municipalities bordering on the Ottawa river. The delegates came to urge the administration to grant permission to export power from the proposed development at Carillon.
*
The Prime Minister replied that the problem which the government had to consider was not local to the Ottawa valley, but had its national, international, and interprovincial viewpoints. The government had only one desire, namely, to further the public interest. When private interest could be helped without injuring the public interest, it was desirable to help it also.
The main question for the government was to decide for the public interest, and in the export of power it was necessary to see that the future of the country was not prejudiced in any way. Immediate consideration was promised.
Speaking in this house that year, the Right Hon. George P. Graham made some significant statements with regard to the export of electrical power. In Hansard of May 14, 1925, at page 3222, he stated:
I am strongly of the opinion-if it were my personal business, I might perhaps think otherwise, being after the profits-that any government in Canada ought to go very slow

Electric Power Export
in approving of the export of power in any great quantity. There is no question about that in my mind; I agree heartily. There is an argument on the other side which has been presented to us very strongly time and again by people living along certain powers, who feel they are losing day by day in seeing the power flow by their doors without development. They take the ground that development cannot take place unless outside capital is got for that development, and that would imply the export of a part of the power. That is the situation. It is not changed at the present time from what it has been for months and years.
Again, speaking on May 19, at page 3348, Mr. Graham said:
I am stating the government's policy. I am pointing out that my hon. friend's supposed policy the other night is not practicable; is not followed by his own friends in any province; is not followed by any government. In the production of power business demands that under certain circumstances, such as those existing in connection with the hydro-electric projects, an export of power should be allowed.
Mr. Manion:	Temporarily.
Mr. Graham:	I will come to that. I want
to nail it down fast and tight that the policy of any government looking to the welfare of the Dominion of Canada and to the development of power in Canada should not be a prohibition of the export of power under all circumstances to 'the United States; for the result would be at one fell swoop to bring about increased rates on the part of the hydro-electric power projects in Ontario as well as on the part of other companies.
Let me go a little further. My hon. friend (Mr. Manion) suggests that the export should be temporary; I am coming to that. The legislation of the parliament of Canada has been sane along these lines. The regulations adopted in 1907-08 by the Laurier administration were sane. They restricted by regulation under the statute the period of time for which licences might be granted, limiting it at twelve months. That was wise. The hon. gentleman may say that that might permit the establishing of vested rights. What vested right could be established in twelve months? None, and none has been so established. This regulation restricting the export of power to a period of twelve months is notice to the United States users that this supply of power to them is not permanent; that it can be taken away from them at the end of any twelve-months period. It is notice to every person concerned that this is only temporary. I want to put it again, as strongly as I can, that the policy of this government in power is the policy that has been adopted in Canada and successfully followed during the last eighteen years. It is the policy that has been practised by the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario and by the companies, and it is a policy under which every interest is safeguarded so far as the Canadian user is concerned.
That statement, I think, sets forth clearly the policy of the administration at that time. The question of export of power was also brought before the house that year in a debate on a resolution introduced by Mr. LeSueur, the then member for West Lambton.
The resolution proposed that export be permitted only on a yearly licence, no licence to be issued "beyond those at present outstanding except for off-peak power."
The resolution as introduced practically meant the prohibition of export except with respect to off-peak power. When the resolution was presented to the house by Mr. LeSueur, who was then in opposition, I suggested on behalf of the government that it should be amended so as to permit the export of power only upon the consent of the government or governments of the province or provinces concerned, and the amendment was accepted by the opposition. The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who at the time was the leader of the opposition, said that he accepted the amendment because he believed that so far as the provinces were concerned they would not wish to give their consent to the export of power. He thought that prohibition of export would be obtained in that way. In addition to that reason, however, he thought it desirable to have, if possible, unanimous agreement in the house on so important a question, and accordingly was prepared to accept the amendment which the government proposed. The amendment struck out the words "except for off-peak power" and substituted the words "except with the concurrence of the province or provinces in which it is proposed to develop such power." I shall read in a moment the text of Mr. Meighen's remarks at the time. The resolution as introduced read:
That in the opinion of this house the export of hydro-electric power from Canada should be permitted only on yearly licence and no licences should be issued beyond those at present outstanding except for off-peak power.
My observations on the resolution appear in Hansard of June 15, 1925, at page 4276, as follows:
I am sure every hon. member would wish, witli respect to the export of power, to see that under no condition was power exported which we would likely need in the immediate future, or which we would be unable to recover before the time at which the actual need might arise. With any policy that has that end in view, the government is wholeheartedly in accord.
And at page 4278:
I would suggest that the hon. member amend his resolution by deleting the words "and no licences should be issued, and so on, and substituting therefor the words:
-and that hereafter no licence for the export of power beyond that already granted should be issued except with the concurrence of the province or provinces in which it is proposed to develop such power.
I believe that if that provision were substituted it would give all the security that is needed. ...	[DOT]
Electric Power Export

In a word, if this parliament declares that there should be no export of power except by yearly licence, it thereby serves notice on its neighbour-because it is only to the United States that any export can take place-that at any time, as the needs of this country demand, that power export may be terminated, without occasioning a grievance or without having established any vested rights of the other side meanwhile. If beyond this it couples with that declaration the provision that all future licences shall be granted only by concurrence of the province from which the power is to be exported, there should be every reason to feel that we have gone as far as we should in seeking to safeguard our resources. To go further would be possibly to work an injury in the opposite direction.
The motion as amended was agreed to, on June 15, 1925, and appears at page 4288 of Hansard:
That in the opinion of this house the export of hydro-electric power from Canada should be permitted only on yearly licence, and that hereafter no licence for export of power beyond that already granted should be issued except with the concurrence of the province or provinces in which it is proposed to develop such power and of any other provinces adjacent to such development and interested therein.
In the course of that debate, in addition to Mr. Meighen and myself, the Right Hon. George P. Graham also spoke, and his utterances in reference to the policy at the time I think should be quoted. Mr. Graham said, as reported at page 4258:
It is different in the case of a yearly licence. If a licence is given for twelve months, as has been the practice since 1907, the party who receives the power-unless something unforeseen happens or he gets notice to the contrary in advance-has a certain right to believe that year by year that licence will be renewed. That is really what has been done. That is what has to be done if the contract is for one hundred years. That has been done for years in the case of the Hydro-Electric, and that is being done also in the case of the Cedar Rapids power development. Giving a licence year by year leads to the conclusion that, unless something unforeseen happens, such yearly licence will be granted annually	
I just want to point out to my hon. friend and to the house that we must be careful how far we go with a resolution aimed at the export of power. The general principle may be all right but if we are going so far to say that it never shall be possible, that it cannot be possible under any circumstances, that any new power developed in this country should be exported, then we may- tie up some very laudable enterprises, including the development under way in the province of New Brunswick, which is not in the hands of a private concern at all but is a provincial enterprise respecting which the province has been trying for a long time to get a proper status so that it could proceed with the necessary construction and development. I think we ought to be very careful as to how we proceed in tying up beyond peradventure the right of some province to export power. . . .

Of course I can imagine the time might come when it might be the duty of any government then in power, no matter of what party, to consider the situation and to see that the power in Canada is retained to the people of the dominion to whom it belongs; but to tie ourselves up absolutely and to say that under no circumstances whatever shall power be exported would be an altogether different thing. I think my hon. friend will see himself that it might be a mistake to make this resolution so far-reaching. Personally I have no objection at all to the first part of the resolution, but I think it would be a great mistake to insist that we should never export one single horsepower hereafter except off-peak load.
The statements of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen will be found in Hansard of June 15, 1925, at page 4281:
Power is the rawest of all resources. Power is much more rudimentary, much more an instrument of further development and production than is any other raw resource whatsoever. Power bears the same relation to the ordinary raw resources of a country that those raw resources bear to the finished products of the country. It is the instrument by which the mineral is delved from the ground; it is the instrument by which the coal is heaved to the surface. It is the most fundamental and rudimentary of all things looking to the expansion of a nation; so that the arguments which apply in favour of directing trade currents and trade policy so as to keep raw resources for development by the people of a country apply with double force to the case of power. . . .
At page 4282:
Power is not something that is in the world market, that another country can substitute for if a first country withdraws. Power is something which once exported becomes the foundation of a great vested right and the withdrawal of it-however closely, however narrowly and carefully it may have been provided for-becomes a practical impossibility. We found ourselves in the position that when we needed the power badly we could not withdraw it, and we found, as well, that although we applied the system of yearly licences the company undertook to give contracts extending over a period of time and we were bound not only by the rights secured by the industry erected but were also bound, in a measure, by the contract although that contract had no warrant to be entered into.
At page 4287:
I accept the amendment in order that we may be united and that the whole world may know how we are travelling in relation to this great question. But I would prefer that governmental responsibility should not be shirked, and I would have preferred that it be declared once and for all that we are against further exportation; but I accept it inasmuch as I believe this amendment in its practical result will reach the same end as the amendment that was moved before, because I do not believe that our provinces will agree to the export at all. That being my opinion, I accept the amendment as now agreed to by the Prime Minister himself.

Electric Power Export
The references I have given make it clear that in the year 1925 all parties in this house were united on a policy of permitting the export of electrical energy by yearly licence only, subject to the approval of the province or provinces concerned. They were united as well in agreeing that, with these precautions, individual applications might be considered upon their merits.
In 1926 there was, as I have already indicated, nothing further in the way of discussion in this house. But in that year- and I refer to this particularly because it bears on the position of the provinces-the province of Quebec passed an act prohibiting the exportation of hydro-electric power from that province to places outside Canada. The first clause of the act is as follows:
Every sale, lease or grant whatsoever of water powers belonging to the province or in which it has rights of ownership or other rights, made on or after March 24, 1926, shall contain a clause prohibiting the exportation outside of Canada of the electric power which may be developed in this province.
The following year, 1927, there was no discussion in this house, although the then hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the present member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), in the course of the debate on the budget gave his views at some length with respect to the export of power.
I come now to the year 1928, the year in which my hon. friend the member for Leeds introduced his bill for the first time. On January 7, 1928 the Beauharnois company made application for the approval of its plans under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I should like to make perfectly clear what was the duty of the administration of the day with respect to that application. Some hon. members who were not in the house at the time may not be familiar with the law with respect to the development of water power on navigable rivers. The law requires that, where any power development is contemplated on a navigable river, the plans must be submitted in the first instance to the Department of Public Works of the federal administration, and be approved with respect to their non-interference with navigation. In other words, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, no development is permitted on a navigable stream, which is calculated or likely to impede navigation. The application of the Beauharnois company for the approval of its plans, was made pursuant to the provisions of this act. The Beauharnois company had obtained its charter, not from the federal government but from the government
of Quebec. All the federal government had to consider was whether or not the plans as proposed interfered with navigation.
May I direct attention to this fact, that the province of Ontario had for many years been developing power at Niagara. The province of Quebec was equally anxious to develop power within its boundaries. Had the government of Canada at that time refused to approve the plans of the Beauharnois company, when as finally submitted they in no way interfered with navigation but as a matter of fact took into full account possible future developments with regard to navigation, this government would have been denying the province of Quebec a right which the province of Ontario had exercised for many years. I think that ought to be clearly understood, because many efforts have been made to misrepresent the action of the then federal government with respect to the Beauharnois development. All that was done was to approve the company's plans under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I do not think it has ever been claimed that the approval was not properly given. It was. given in the light of the reports of technical experts, who were agreed that the plans in reference to the development of power did not prejudice the federal interest in the matter of navigation.
At the same time there was before the country and before parliament the question of the development of the St. Lawrence waterway, involving a navigation project as distinguished from a power project. The St. Lawrence waterway occasioned a great deal in the way of discussion and consideration in parliament. Being discussed pretty much at the same time as the Beauharnois power development, the two questions came to be interlocked, as it were, and each was referred to in discussions on the other. When discussions took place with regard to the development of the St. Lawrence, the question of what attitude should be taken, with regard to the power that might be developed on the St. Lawrence, as a result of the navigation development, naturally came up for consideration, and the government felt it imperative to express its views in reference thereto. What was said with respect to what related to navigation must be viewed in the light of the particular proposals to which it had reference..
In order to be fully advised with respect to the development of the St. Lawrence waterway, the dominion government appointed an advisory committee composed of a number of gentlemen who had
Electric Power Export

special knowledge of the questions involved. This body, which was known as the Canadian national advisory committee on the St. Lawrence waterway, made its report to the government on January 11, 1928. The report will be found in the white paper which was tabled the other day. I shall make reference to one or two passages from the report. They bear on the question of the export of power and the policy that should be adopted in reference thereto.
Parliament met early in January, 1928, and on January 30 of that year the hon. member for Leeds introduced his amendment to the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, which provided that no person should export power without the approval of parliament. In introducing his bill my hon. friend said, as will be found in Hansard for that year, on page 12:
The effect of this bill is to provide that a licence shall only issue by the authority oi parliament, and on such terms as may be determined by parliament. The necessary amendments to the existing act are included in this bill, and there is an express provision that nothing contained in this bill shall be deemed in any way to affect the rights of the provinces in connection with electric power.
The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) spoke on the second reading of the bill and made the following statement, which will be found on page 361 of Hansard for February 10, 1928:
There is, however, a general tendency towards believing that, with respect to the exportation of electric energy, parliament should be consulted because of unfortunate incidents that sometimes arise by reason of such licences being granted, and then when the power may be required for domestic purposes at home, it is found that there have been created abroad vested interests of such a character that the cancellation of the licence is regarded as an unfriendly act. Parliament, therefore, should consider these matters in every detail before a licence is granted.
Hon. Charles Stewart, taking part in. the debate and speaking on behalf of the Liberal administration of the day, on February 14, as will be found at page 453 of Hansard for that year, declared:
The government is taking no exception to this bill. It does not make any drastic change, but I think the sponsor has in mind that in eases where new developments spring up, and there is a possibility of a certain portion of the power being exported, the company or individual promoting the measure shall come to parliament and obtain a private bill for that purpose. With that suggestion the government has no quarrel; indeed I think I may say on behalf of the government that we will go even a step further. It is in our opinion desirable that the exportation of electricity be absolutely prohibited; it is too valuable an asset for us to permit it to leave our country.

Speaking on behalf of the government during the budget debate of that year I gave to this house a very explicit statement of the views which the government held at that time. In doing so, I had in mind the existing controversy with respect to the development of the St. Lawrence, and the desirability of making the position clear in order that undue expectations might not be aroused in other countries with respect to the power which might be developed as a result of the project. The quotation is:
Then take our -water powers; a few years ago we did not even regard them as an asset; to-day they are one of our greatest assets. This government has laid down the policy that the export of hydro-electric power shall be prohibited so that these great reserves of energy may be utilized in building up the dominion. We have available forty-one million horsepower, of which at present only four and three-quarter million has been developed.
That was the position in 1928. In 1929 my hon. friend re-introduced his bill and, as I have said, it was passed without discussion. It was given its three readings in this house with the unaminous approval of all members. The present Premier of Ontario, the Hon. M. F. Hepburn, was at the time a member of the house and, from the record of a division on that day, it will be seen that Mr. Hepburn was present in the house the day the bill received its three readings. As a matter of fact, so united were hon. members on the measure as proposed, which had as its essential principle the approval by parliament of the granting of all subsequent licences for the export of power, that it went through the house in one day.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Did Mr. Hepburn vote
for or against it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In effect everyone voted for it. There was no division.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was just called
"Carried".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bill was carried unanimously in this house. That was on February 21. On February 25, a debate took place on the St. Lawrence waterways development, and on that occasion I brought out clearly the government's view, with respect to the exportation of power developed through that project from Canada to the United States.
I wish at this point to make clear to the house exactly what was in the mind of hon. members at the time that measure was 'discussed. One of the arguments strongly urged in favour of the St. Lawrence waterway project was that, under certain circumstances, it might be possible to have the whole cost

Electric Power Export
of canalization of the St. Lawrence borne by the United States. Canada had already made expensive developments in connection with the Great Lakes-Niagara-St. Lawrence waterway system. We had constructed the Welland canal, and there are other important developments of which hon. members are aware. Our outlay had already been very considerable, so that if the project were to be proceeded with it remained then for our American friends to meet the major portion of the expense, and we would have the advantage of the development, without much by way of further cost to Canada.
The situation was that the eastern states were in need of power and Canada requested only a limited amount; she did not require anything like the amount of power which could be developed on the St. Lawrence. The proposal was made from different quarters that Canada might be prepared to allow export of power to the United States for a number of years, until the demand had increased sufficiently to enable the Canadian market to absorb all the surplus power. That point was raised concretely in connection with the Beauharnois project. It was stated that if it could be agreed between the two countries that a large part of the surplus power developed at Beauharnois should be exported to the United States for a period of years, the amount paid for the power would be sufficient to meet whatever expenditures might have to be made by Canada for the canalization of the St. Lawrence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was predicated on the St. Lawrence waterway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; as my right hon. friend has said, it was predicated on the St. Lawrence waterway development. It was in that connection the government found it necessary to make it clear to the United States that we would not for one moment consider the export of power to the extent that would be involved in a proposal of that kind. In other words, public opinion in Canada would not entertain the thought of large quantities of power being exported to the United States, to the extent that it would develop communities on the other side of the St. Lawrence river which would be dependent upon Canadian power. In its report, the committee appointed to advise the government made it very clear that they felt any export of power to that degree would not be in accord with the views of the Canadian people, and should not be contemplated. It was made clear, once and for all, in discussions in connection with the St. Lawrence
waterway development, that we would not consider the possibility of large-scale exportation of power from Canada to the United States.
I shall not refer to the brief observations of the hon. member for Leeds in reintroducing his bill. I shall, however, read to the house what I said in the debate on the St. Lawrence waterway. My observations are to be found in Hansard of February 25, 1929, page 415:
Our government has repeatedly made clear its policy with respect to the exportation of power from Canada to the United States. We have given it as our opinion that power should not be exported. That opinion was endorsed by the national advisory committee with respect to the power which might be generated in connection with the development of the St. Lawrence. Accordingly, in writing the United States with respect to any possible basis of negotiation, our position in this regard was made very clear. The exact statement made by our government will be found in the correspondence which passed between the United States and Canada, all of which was tabled in this house on April 17, of last year. In that correspondence will be found a communication dated January 31, 1928, which contains these words:
" Reference was made in your note to the early development of hydro electric power as a factor which must have equal application to and influence upon the Dominion of Canada. The opportunity of developing great quantities of power incidental to navigation is. it is agreed, a special advantage possessed by the St. Lawrence project, and an important consideration in determining its advisability. In this aspect of the project, however, there are again special features in the Canadian situation which it is desirable to make clear. Public opinion in Canada is opposed to the export of hydro-electric power, and is insistent that such power as may be rendered available on the St. Lawrence, whether from the wholly Canadian section, or from the Canadian half of the international section, shall be utilized within the dominion to stimulate Canadian industry and develop the natural resources. With this view the national advisory committee expresses itself as in complete accord."
That finishes the quotation from the note: I now return to my observations:
When the United States government replied to our communication it was made perfectly clear that from the point of view of the United States.^ Canada was entirely within her rights in taking such a position, and that no question would be raised on the part of the United States with respect thereto.
And later on:
i What I wish to make clear at the moment is that, with respect to any projected St. Lawrence development, this parliament may take it as definitely settled and understood between the United States and Canada that power generated on the St. Lawrence and belonging to Canada will not be exported to the United States but will be used for the development of our industries and our natural resources.

Electric Power Export
Hon. members will find, at page 112 of the white paper I tabled a few days ago, the report of the Canadian National Advisory Committee. The opinion of the committee is found in section 9 at page 116:
In consideration of the economic aspect, we have given some thought to the question of possible export of power. As to that we would say that we are in complete accord with the feeling throughout Canada that export of power should not be permitted.
Then, at page 119 is the expression of opinion of Mr. Beaudry Leman and Adelard Turgeon, two members of the committee who, while in agreement with the other members of the committee, made additional observations, a part of which reads as follows:
It would seem wholly desirable that power developed in the national sections and Canada's share of power developed in the international section be not exported, permanently or temporarily. The energy so produced should be retained permanently in Canada as being a very important factor in its development. Should large amounts of power be temporarily exported there would be strong possibilities of causes of friction developing with the United States when this power would be required for use in Canada.
In view of the large amounts of power which would ultimately become available _ for use in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, it would appear desirable that the governments of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario agree with the broad lines of the -policy adopted by the government of Canada. It would seem important that the cooperation of the provincial governments concerned be obtained in respect of the features of this project wherein power development is the predominating object. The collaboration of the government of Canada and of the provincial governments concerned towards the realization of this project would be a potent factor in insuring its success.


Mr. CAHAN:: What is the date of that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is dated Montreal, January 18, 1927. Based on that advice of the advisory board, a communication of some length was sent by the Canadian government, through its minister at Washington, to the Secretary of State of the United States. This communication was dated January 31, 1928, and made clear to the government of the United States how the government of Canada viewed the question of any possibility of large exports of power from the Canadian St. Lawrence waterway developments. In 1928 I tabled the correspondence relating to the St. Lawrence waterway project as a white paper. The report of the Canadian National Advisory Committee appears in that white paper as well as the correspondence between the governments of Canada and the United States. I intend to read a

part of the dispatch of January 31, 1928, which will be found at page 9 of the white paper, of 1928:
Reference was made in your note to the early development of hydro-electric power as a factor which must have equal application to and influence upon the Dominion of Canada. The opportunity of developing great quantities of power incidental to navigation is, it is agreed, a special advantage possessed by the St. Lawrence project, and an important consideration in determining its advisability. In this aspect of the project, however, there are again special features in the Canadian situation which it is desirable to make clear. Public opinion in Canada is opposed to the export of hydro-electric power, and is insistent that such power as may be rendered available on the St. Lawrence, whether from the wholly Canadian section, or from the Canadian half of the international section, shall be utilized within the dominion to stimulate Canadian industry and develop the national resources. With this in view the national advisory committee expresses itself as in complete accord. The committee further indicates^ that, in view of the relatively limited capacity of the Canadian market to absorb the vast blocks of power contemplated by the St. Lawrence proposals, it follows that it is most important, in any arrangement which may be considered, that the development of power on the Canadian side should not exceed the capacity of the Canadian market to absorb it.
I wish to make clear again the circumstances in which these communications were sent to the United States government. They arose out of the development of the St. Lawrence waterway project and the proposal that, if the government of Canada would consent to the export of large quantities of power, it might be possible to have the canalization of the St. Lawrence made at the expense of the United States rather than at the expense of Canada. This brings the matter up to. the end of 1929. The statements which I have given were made prior to the passing of the order in council which approved the plans of the Beauharnois Power Company. The statements were made in order to make the position of the government clear with respect to this larger proposal before any formal approval was given to the power development plans. As I indicated in the outline I gave a few moments ago, there has been no further major discussion in this house on this question since 1929.
In the years 1930 to 1935, my right hon. friend opposite was in office. During that period one significant measure was passed by the legislature of Quebec, which reversed the policy of that province of opposition to export of power from Quebec. I have already quoted the important sections of the statute of 1926. On April 4, 1933, that act was amended to permit the export of a limited

Electric Power Export
amount of power under certain conditions. I shall refer to these conditions before I conclude, but at the moment I think the house will be interested to know the position taken in 1933 by the present premier of Quebec with respect to the proposal that the act should be amended to permit the export of power from Quebec to the United States. The Quebec legislature does not happen to have a Hansard in which discussions are recorded, as is the case in this house, and I have therefore to fall back on the press report. I imagine the following report is correct, at least no exception has been taken to it so far as I know. The Montreal Gazette of April 5, 1933, reports a speech made by Mr. M. L. Duplessis, the leader of the opposition in the Quebec legislative assembly, during the debate on the bill to permit the export of power, as follows:
Mr. Duplessis said that the premier (Mr Taschereau) had declared at the time of the export prohibition legislation that once the power went to the United States it would be impossible to recall it, and to seek to do so would be a cause of war, so it was apparent that the government would not have control of the power to be exported. It meant a permanent alienation of 250,000 horse-power developed in Quebec. Already there was export of power from Cedars Rapids, and the Southern Canada Power Company also exported power to the United States. Evidently, the law had already been breached.
The second excuse was that the provincial government needs more revenue. But, demanded Mr. Duplessis hotly, was this a sufficient reason for alienation of natural resources? The conduct of the government was most regrettable, most condemnable. It meant that the United States would be aided in building up its industries, and Canadian workmen suffer from lack of employment.
"I cannot understand how the government, speaking through the voice of the distinguished minister of lands and forests, can tell the province that because it needs money it is necessary to part with our precious capital," said the opposition leader. "These resources were handed over to us as trustees, so as to insure the survival of our people, to maintain our national life, and not because we could get some revenue. We need money, but that is paying very dear for the few dollars. The minister asks for legislation to enable the government to give part of the soul of Quebec to the Americans for an annual revenue which does not represent more than a small share of the actual value of the power. The government says that things have changed, but the conditions of to-day are those made by the government, which has permitted over-capitalization, forced pulp and paper manufacturers to build new mills, permitted Sunday labour in those mills, and thereby added to the causes of the trouble. The government in 1926, following the policies preached by the opposition, adopted a policy of leasing our natural resources, and now the government asks for a return to the disastrous policy of alienation."
As to argument that the province has almost unlimited resources, Mr. Duplessis suggested that this surplus of electricity be used to electrify the countryside, supply light at cheap rates. For while 1,000 rural municipalities get electricity, he was ready to engage that the whole 1,000 complained of the rates charged. The country could be made more attractive with electricity, farming could be made to pay, and thereby a great problem would be solved, and there was also the matter of heating by electricity to be considered. Charity commenced at home, said Mr. Duplessis, and when all the things he had mentioned had been done, it would be time to consider if we had a surplus which could not be disposed of in Canada, and then the attitude to be adopted could be decided. There was talk of the need of preserving the savings of the people, but the greatest saving for the people would be to safeguard the natural resources for their benefit. What should be done was to commence rectifying the errors the government had committed in the past as much as possible, for there must be respect for rights legitimately acquired.
The present legislation meant that the richest and most accessible water powers would go to the benefit of the United States. Mr. Duplessis said the legislation was of a permanent nature, and it was to deal with a temporary condition of depression, and had it not been the premier who this session had repeatedly declared against legislation of a permanent nature to deal with temporary difficulties. The opposition was against the legislation with all its powers, and would not support a policy that was ruinous, backward and disastrous. It was asked that the lieutenant-governor in council be given the powers needed, but there had been abuses in the past, and he for one had no confidence in the lieutenant-governor in council, nor in the ability to make terms for the sale of our natural resources to the Americans. "We are of the opinion that the legislation presented is inopportune and prejudicial to the public interested," concluded Mr. Duplessis.
That, I think, is all that I need quote for the period from 1930 to 1935, except the following, which I imagine my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition will wish to have placed on record. Speaking on May 17, 1933, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said, as reported in Hansard, at page 5131:
With respect to the export of power from Canada to the United States, those who are interested will find that in 1925 the legislature of Quebec passed a statute, the preamble of which is as concise and powerful an indictment of any policy that will permit the export of power as it is possible to conceive can be put into words. No stronger indictment as to the evil consequences that will flow from permitting the export of power to the United States can be found than will be found in that statute. But the province of Quebec has not the jurisdiction over the export of any commodity from this dominion. That rests within the jurisdiction of the dominion, and this parliament passed a statute which provides for licences being given before power or gas is exported from our country.
Electric Power Export

Elsewhere in the course of the discussion my right hon. friend mentioned, I believe, that no further licences had been granted by his administration and that they had no intention of permitting further exports.
In 1934, 1935 and 1936 there were no discussions in this house. I come now to the year 1937. Last year there was a short discussion ; it took place on an item in the estimates, "Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, administration of, $750." At that time the late Right Hon. Sir George Perley questioned the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), who was then submitting his estimates, with respect to the policy of the government on the export of power. The discussion is reported, at page 2932 of Hansard of April 7, 1937, as follows:
Sir George Perley: I understand it is the policy of the government not to issue any further licences for export	
Mr. Euler: We do not grant licences to export power, except with the consent of the province concerned. We have given only this one.
Sir George Perley: I understand that. This one seems quite all right, because it involves only an exchange of power; we get back what we export. But if at the present time an application is made to the government for a licence to export a large quantity of power, what would the procedure be? What is the government's policy in that respect?
Mr. Euler: I do not know that I am in a position to say, except that I suppose each case would be judged on its merits. As a general principle, and speaking for myself rather than for the government-in fact, that is the only way I can speak-I would say it is not the policy of the government to export to another country power which might be needed in this country. However, no applications have been received, and I believe there are none before the department. About all I can say to my right hon. friend would be that we will cross that bridge when we come to it.
Later, Sir George Perley having said, with reference to some other point, "The minister does not seem to have taken that view of it,"-
Mr. Euler:	... I cannot definitely say at
this time, if the right hon. gentleman wishes me to make a direct statement, that this government is taking the absolute position that in no case whatsoever will it issue a licence to export power. I cannot say that. But I will say, as I said before, that I do not anticipate any substantial exportation of power, and certainly none which in my opinion of the government would in any way prejudice Canada's position in the future with regard to power requirements. I can give my right hon. friend no further assurance than that. I do not know of any absolute assertion by any government that as a matter of definite and conclusive fact they will not at any time export any power.

Sir George Perley: I think the minister is right in that.
Mr. Euler: I think we should consider each case on its merits.
That concludes all I wish to say with regard to the discussions which have taken place in this parliament and what appears on the record as to the views of different administrations with regard to the export of power. I have made these quotations in extenso for the reason that they bear immediately upon the question which the government had to consider last year. From what I have pointed out, I think it is clear that, after the bill of the hon. member for Leeds had passed this house unanimously, the government- all governments from that time on-assumed that further licences were not to be granted without, at least, securing the approval of parliament. The fact that the bill referred to passed its first and second readings in 1928 and all three readings in 1929 without a division, settled, I believe, in the minds of the administrations that followed-that of my right hon. friend during his time, and the present administration since we have come into office-the view, which we believed the House of Commons would take with respect to any applications, namely that, while we should not close the door wholly to any export of power, we should provide that no further licences should be granted without the approval of parliament and that, in seeking to secure such approval, each application should be considered on its merits.
Much of the discussion that took place in previous years related to developments for purposes of navigation; but out of all the discussion we reached the point where this House of Commons was agreed upon a policy of permitting future export of power only with the approval of parliament. That was the position when, in April of last year, the government received an application from the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company for the right to export 40,000 horse power to the United States, to the Aluminum Company of America at Massena, New York. The application will be found at page 65 of the white paper I tabled the other day. It was made on April 17. Some of my colleagues and myself were preparing at that time to leave for the coronation and the imperial conference, and when the application was brought to the cabinet we felt that we could not possibly give it adequate consideration in the little time that remained before we left. Accordingly we advised the parties who made the application that it would have to stand

Electric Power Export
over until after the return to this country of those members of the cabinet who were going abroad.
In the application, very strong arguments were presented as to why it should be granted immediately. For example, the application set forth that it would mean a reduction in the rates to consumers of electricity in the city of Montreal, whereas, not to grant the application at once was to deny consumers in that city a reduction in rates which they otherwise would have. That presented, of course, an important consideration. While the imperial conference was in session the company renewed its application to the cabinet, stressing that the matter was of such importance that it desired to have the licence granted before the return of the ministers who were abroad. It was pointed out that unless this application were immediately granted, the company might lose altogether the chance of making an important contract which it had under negotiation. However, the members of the government in Ottawa, m the absence of their colleagues abroad, declined to grant the application and took the view that the matter must be held over until the return of the absent members when there would be a full cabinet to consider the whole question.
When we returned, this question was one of the first taken up by my colleagues and myself. The president of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company wrote me a letter in regard to the application and asked for an immediate answer to the representations that had been made. The answer I made was to the effect that, in view of the importance of the subject, and the extent' to which it had been discussed in parliament in the past, the government felt that the matter would have to be discussed in parliament in the first instance.
It was in August that the president of the company communicated with me. In November another application was received, this time from Mr. Powell, the president of Aluminium Limited of Montreal. Mr. Powell called upon me personally, accompanied by his counsel, Mr. Geoffrion, and presented the representations of his company with respect to the necessity for granting their application. It was pointed out that important contracts which had international significance were being held up because of a shortage of power experienced by a concern in the United States with which the Canadian company was allied, and that unless the application were granted forthwith these contracts might be prejudiced. It was claimed that all that was being requested was the right to export surplus power
going to waste in Canada. It was urged that to deny to the company the right to export surplus power to help them to meet an important demand on the other side was to take an indefensible position. It was also advanced that the proceeds which the company would obtain from exportation of power would result in additional employment at a time when employment was needed, and that it would also have its effect on consumers' rates.
These were strong representations. The government took again the same position that I have described with reference to the previous application, namely, that, however willing we might be to grant the application, we did not feel that, in the light of previous discussions in this house and the view that it had unanimously taken with respect to the bill requiring the approval of parliament in the first instance before any export should be granted, we could do other than bring the matter here to parliament before consenting to such exportation
I have brought the matter up to the second of November. Up to that time neither my colleagues nor myself had had any knowledge whatever that any other application was likely to be forthcoming. I am making this clear because I wish the house to understand exactly how it has come about that this bill has been brought in at the present time. It has not been brought in because the government of Ontario made an application. Representations in respect of the Ontario government's application were not made until late in the month of November.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is significant that in the meantime the Cedars Rapids had withdrawn their application.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That point will come out later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is in the white paper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But it does not bear upon what I have in mind at the moment. What I wish to bring out is that it was November 29 before representations were made by the premier of Ontario to my colleagues and myself with respect to granting a licence to the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission to export 120,000 horse power. The position of the government had been taken, not in reference to any application from the province of Ontario, but with respect to two applications from the province of Quebec. That, I wish hon. members to see clearly, and to understand. The decision of the administration to deal at this session with the export of hydro-electric power, in a manner which would lead to a discussion of the whole subject on the floor of parliament,
Electric Power Export

grew out of the two applications made by Quebec companies, one in April and the other early in November, 1937. And the decision was reached and made of record in the replies that were sent to those companies before any member of the administration had any knowledge or thought of the possibility of any application coming from the province of Ontario. I notice that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), speaking the other night in Petrolia, sought to present an entirely different view. I marvel very much at what he said in the light of the knowledge he must have possessed of the facts. Here is what he said, as reported in the Toronto Star of March 8, 1938:
Petrolia, March 8-"Premier Hepburn frightened King so badly over the export of power from this province that now the Prime Minister of this dominion has turned right-about-face and has submitted the matter of power export to parliament." Hon. Earl Rowe, Ontario Conservative leader, made this statement here last night.
And the statement is in quotation marks.
Now may I say to my hon. friend that it was not Mr. King who was frightened by Mr. Hepburn, but it was my hon. friend himself who had the life frightened out of him. What is the present position? After he fought a provincial campaign with Mr. Hepburn and was badly defeated he took to cover very quickly, and is under cover at the present time in this house. He ought to be in the Ontario house fighting his battles with the premier of Ontario there. Evidently he is too frightened for anything like that; he has come back into the fold here and is carefully protecting himself in the shelter of this house while he makes attacks of this sort outside, which are wholly unwarranted and unjustifiable. I say to my hon. friend that as far as the application from Ontario is concerned, that application had nothing whatever to do with the decision of the government to refer the question of the export of power to parliament at this session. That decision was made, as I have indicated, before any word whatever had come to the government from the province of Ontario, nor was there the slightest thought in the mind of any of us that an application would be received from that source.
I have another reason for having placed on the record these statements this afternoon. It is to make perfectly clear to hon. members, and to the members of the Ontario legislature and to the people of Ontario, why the present administration could not possibly have given any other answer than the answer it gave to the premier of Ontario when he made the application to us to give to the

Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario the right to export 120,000 horsepower. We were already on record in writing to these two Quebec companies that they would have to wait until parliament met and the whole question was discussed here, before we could consider their request, and that we would only grant their request if we had reason to believe our doing so would be favourably viewed by this parliament. We expressly stated that we wished to be guided by the views of parliament, recognizing that in the course of years there may be reasons for modifying policies, but equally that, if those policies are to be modified, it must be in the light of reasons sufficient for that purpose.
I now refer the house to the application of Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated, which will be found at page 57 of the white paper tabled the other day. The reply sent to that application appears on page 65 of the white paper. I wish to read that reply because it is what governs the situation. This letter was sent by myself in reply to a communication from J. S. Norris, president of Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated. The president's letter is dated Montreal, August 10, 1937. I shall not read the entire letter but shall read two paragraphs:
The proposition is a matter of business in that it affords an excellent opportunity of disposing, temporarily, of some surplus power and bringing into the Dominion of Canada a substantial amount of money which would otherwise be lost.
The granting of the export licence requested will bring to the federal government approximately $75,000 per annum, by reason of the export tax, to the Quebec government a very substantial increase in revenue, and to the electricity customers in the Montreal area the amount indicated.
.	.	. we bespeak your good offices toward
early and favourable consideration of the matter by your government; in other words we are fearful of losing the opportunity of this sale and consequently would appreciate an early decision.
The reply I made to that communication was as follows:
Ottawa, August 14, 1937.
J. S. Norris, Esq.,
President,
Montreal Light, Heat and Power
Consolidated,
Montreal, Que.
Dear Mr. Norris:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of August the 10th, just received, with reference to the application of the Cedars Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company, a subsidiary of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, for a

Electric Power Export
licence to export 40,000 horse power to the United States, for sole use by the Aluminum Company of America, at Massena, New York.
The representations of your letter have received the most careful consideration of my colleagues and myself. I regret, however, that the government is not in a position to grant the licence, at the present time. In view of the broad question of policy involved, and the fact that the export of power to the United States has been debated at length in parliament on several occasions, the government is of the opinion that an opportunity should be afforded at the approaching session for a discussion on the subject, before any final action is taken with respect to the application of the Cedars Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
The interview with Mr. Powell, president of Aluminium Limited of Montreal, was held in my office, on November 2. In the absence of the under Secretary of State for External Affairs, the acting under secretary, Mr. Read, was present. I later asked Mr. Read to communicate to the company the views of the government as they were given after we had an opportunity of considering this second application. The following is the communication which was sent by Mr. Read to the president of Aluminium, Limited, Montreal:
Ottawa, 12th November, 1937.
Dear Mr. Powell:
May I refer to your interview last week with regard to the question of the application of the Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company, a subsidiary of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, for a licence to export 40,000 horsepower to the United States for the sole use of the Aluminum Company of America at Massena, New York. During that interview you and Mr. Geoffrion discussed the relationship between the question of granting the export licence and the position of your company, Aluminium Limited, and its subsidiaries, especially with regard to the use of waste power developed on the Saguenay and the problem of the export markets.
The representations with regard to this matter have received the most careful consideration by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. It is a matter of regret, however, that the government is not in a position to grant the licence at the present time. In view of the broad questions of policy involved and of the fact that export of power to the United States has been debated at length in parliament on several occasions, the government is of the opinion that an opportunity should be afforded at the approaching session for a discussion on this subject before any final action is taken with regard to the application for the export licence in question.
Accordingly I have been instructed to communicate this conclusion to you for your information.
Yours sincerely,
J. E. Read,
Acting Under Secretary of State for External Affairs
R. E. Powell, Esq.,
President,
Aluminium Limited,
Montreal, P.Q.
That communication, as I have said, is dated November 12. It was not until November 26 that the premier of Ontario asked to have an opportunity of meeting my colleagues and myself to discuss the question of granting to the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission a licence for the export of 120,000 horsepower. Perhaps I should pause for a moment to make clear how the matter was brought to our attention in the first instance. My colleague the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) was in Toronto over the week end of November 21. While he was there, he had an interview with the premier of Ontario, in the course of which the premier handed him a communication which had been sent to him by the chairman of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission giving certain facts and making certain statements with respect to the power situation in Ontario. This communication was given by the premier to the Postmaster General to bring down to me to be considered by the government as an application, or at least as the basis for an application to the dominion government for an export licence. The communication appears in the white paper at page 67. It was not until January 21 of the present year that an application was made in due form. It appears at page 72 of the white paper.
When the first communication I have referred to was received by me, I sent it to my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who informed the premier of Ontario of the two previous applications which the government had received and of the action we had taken with respect to them. The minister indicated that it would not be possible to have the matter given consideration at that time. On November 26 I received a telephone communication from the premier of Ontario asking if he might be permitted to present the application to the cabinet in person. I arranged for a special meeting with my colleagues. I had planned to leave Ottawa during the previous week for an absence of a few days, but deferred my departure in order to make possible the meeting, and I asked my colleagues to have their plans so arranged as to permit them to be present also. On November 29 Mr. Hepburn met with my colleagues and myself in my office and made what I think might be considered as an application on behalf of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission to export 120,000 horse power.
I need not go into what was said at the interview; that is beside the point. All I think it is important to communicate to this house is that the premier of Ontario pressed very hard for an assurance from the government that we would grant the application.
Electric Power Export

In the presence of my colleagues, I read to the premier of Ontario the reply which I had made to Mr. Norris and the reply which Mr. Read had made to Mr. Powell with respect to their applications. I quoted several of the declarations of policy, which I have placed on Hansard this afternoon. I directed the premier's attention to the fact that he himself was in the house on the day in 1929 that the bill of the hon. .member for Leeds was unanimously put through all its stages, and the house had decided there should be no further export until parliament had been given an opportunity of approving it. I pointed out wherein this had been the policy of all administrations from. 1929 on. I intimated that in the circumstances it was impossible for the government then and there to accede to the request that had been made and that consideration of the application would have to be held over until after the assembling of parliament.
We were told that the matter was extremely urgent; that the answer must be given that day; for the reason that if it were not given that day the speech from the throne, which was already prepared and was to be delivered on the following day, would have to be changed. I intimated, in speaking with the premier of Ontario, that being a responsible ministry we held the view that as the executive we were the servants, not the masters, of parliament, and that inasmuch as parliament had repeatedly shown a special interest in this matter, and as we had stated in writing our intention to bring the matter before parliament at this session, we could take and would take no action until after an opportunity had been afforded for a full discussion on the export of power in parliament. Naturally the premier of Ontario was much disappointed at that reply. I think I have indicated all that is essential in regard to what took place, and why at that time it was not possible to meet the wishes of the premier of Ontario.
Perhaps I should conclude what I have to say by briefly summing up the reasons pro and con with respect to the granting of an application for the export of power. I hope I have made it clear that so far as the administration is concerned, we have been actuated not by personal motives in any shape or form but solely by a desire to further the public interest and to be true to what we believe to be the relation of an executive to the parliament to which it is responsible. I would now say that in our opinion not only should members of this house feel free to express their views with respect to what is wisest in the matter of granting permission 
for the exportation of power, but they should consider the question most carefully and should not fail to express their views in the clearest manner possible. The views which have been already expressed in this house in previous years show there can be no doubt that the question is one of the most important that at any time is likely to present itself for the consideration of parliament. It is perfectly clear that policies have tended more and more in the direction of safeguarding our electrical energy in this country; it is, however, equally clear that as time has passed it has become apparent that there may be cases where it may be wholly justifiable to grant permission for the further export of power. I would go a step further and say that there may be cases where it would be an injustice not to grant such permission, provided that the case on its merits establishes the wisdom of so doing.
With respect to the particular applications I have mentioned, the only one which has come before us since the last session of parliament, that of the company at Cedars Rapids, as the right hon. the leader of the opposition has already remarked, has been withdrawn. I am not so sure as to the application of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, but as one is a subsidiary of the other I believe the cancellation of one application would involve the cancellation of the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the same organization.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This means
that at the present time the government has before it for consideration only one application, namely that which comes from the government of Ontario. I hope I need not say that the attitude the government will take towards the matter is precisely the same as if the application had come from any other province of the dominion. May I point out further that in considering this matter I believe we should seek to free ourselves of any feelings of prejudice which may have been aroused as a result of discussions which have taken place. In the present measure, we are not deciding what is to be done in connection with the Ontario application, more than to state that the application can be granted only after a private bill has been introduced, has passed this house and the senate, and been given assent. To-day we are deciding what steps should be taken in the event of applications from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia. If possible at this stage, I should like to divest this measure at all events of any special relationship to

Electric Power Export
the province of Ontario. That question can be debated when, in the event of this measure passing, we have the private bill before us.
The house must now consider the broad question of whether or not some cases may arise or have not already arisen where parliament would be justified in granting licences for the export of power. What, then, are the arguments pro and con? Possibly I could sum them up briefly.
The argument most frequently urged against the export of power is that we are parting with our natural resources; that we should not deplete our natural resources. It is stated that the natural resources are the greatest assets of a country, and that in allowing the export of power we are losing the value of a great asset. I believe the answer to the assertion is that power differs from other natural resources in that unless it is used at the time it is created it wastes and is lost forever. Nothing but surplus power, it is said, is to be thought of in connection with exportation. Once power is created, unless it is used immediately it is gone for all time.
This consideration does not apply to other resources. Exportations from our mines and our forests are exportations of national assets which may be limited in quantity. Electrical power is not so limited; the supply is not lessened by permitting export of surplus quantity. When we export power we are not parting with national capital. We do not export the rivers or the falls which create the power. They remain, and continue to function. The same is not true of copper, gold or any other natural resource which may be exported. The true parallel is found in the annual crop. In the exportation of surplus power we have something similar to the exportation of a perishable crop, because if it is not exported it is wasted for all time. It would be as reasonable, it is contended, to prohibit the export of wheat, or cattle or paper to the United States or for the United States to prohibit the export of its coal or oil to Canada.
I believe the difference must be apparent, and it is a fundamental one to keep in mind in connection with any application for the export of surplus power.
The next argument is that we ought to keep power in Canada for the purpose of building up our own industries. It is stated that we should keep it for our own industrial and commercial development and, particularly, that it should be kept in the country for use in shops, factories, and for domestic use in homes for purposes of lighting, heating and motive power. There is too the argument that electrical power should be used more extensively on our farms to relieve
much of the work now being done by manual labour. Especially as other fuel becomes more scarce and expensive is there the greater need to keep electrical energy in our own country. The contention is that if at this time we export power to any great extent, as time runs on it would not be available, and it would be more difficult for domestic industry to secure, at the low cost which would otherwise prevail, the power which should be available. Also it is contended we should, by retaining our power, seek to attract industries and capital to Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the Prime
Ministers idea with respect to the possibility of withdrawing the right to export power, after it has been exported?
Mr- MACKENZIE KING: I shall deal with that point later. I am now trying to present both sides of the case as fairly as possible, because undoubtedly there would be no justification for asking parliament to permit the export of power only by private act unless there were cases where such private acts of parliament would be wholly justified. For that reason I am presenting the argument in this form, to make clear to the house what is to be said for and against the export of power. I do this so that the entire situation may be clear to hon. members.
The opposite side of the same shield is that, with our own power, we should not through export, help to build up competitive industry on the other side of the boundary line. It is alleged that as we send power out of the country we are helping to create industries in another country. As the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) argued on one occasion, we were sending power to build up factories in the United States and to give employment to United States labour, while our own people were unemployed.
It must be remembered that in the development of power, capital is necessary for the erection of plants in which the power can be generated. Capital must be found for transmission and installation of electrical energy before its use can become general. From where is that capital to come? It has been argued-and I believe it can be argued successfully-that some of the enterprises which have already been established in Canada for the purpose of developing power have been established with the assistance of United States capital, and that the capital would not have come to Canada had it not been for the fact that some of the power was to be exported to

1210	COMMONS
Electric Power Export
the United States. In other words, those who favour export contend that to establish a power development requires extensive capital, and that capital can best be secured by permitting the export of a limited amount of the surplus power, until the necessary further capital is found in the country itself to provide for additional transmission, installation and the like. It is the demand for power that brings forth the capital needed for its development. If that demand is not effective it is of little avail. If capital cannot be found at home, it is contended that by exporting surplus power developed at home employment is thereby given our own labour and additional income secured wherewith to expand and extend facilities at home.
In connection with the building up of industries elsewhere, it is important to note that apart altogether from available power, there are many other factors which must be taken into account. Power is a decisive factor in deciding the location of industry in only relatively few cases. Most industries depend upon other available materials, the accessibility to markets and in some cases the geographical location. Power is vital to certain industries, but in others it is not the most important factor. It is probably more important in the paper and aluminium industries than in most others. It has further to be kept in mind that steam power can be produced from coal and that under present day developments it is possible to have it produced at a much lower cost than could have been done heretofore. It is alleged that what will happen in the event of surplus power not being exported is simply that coal will be used to develop power from steam as a substitute. It is claimed that exported power brings revenue to the country that exports. That is one of the answers given to the statement that the export of power means that our own people are going to suffer as a consequence.
The export of power, it is claimed, increases the cost to consumers at home by limiting the quantity available at any moment, and by deferring the time when the surplus power may be used for domestic purposes. The contrary argument is that the extra sale of power enables companies to reduce costs to consumers. It was asserted in all the applications that were before the government last fall that in the event of the export of surplus power being permitted, the companies would be in a position to reduce rates to consumers. What was promised in that connection will be found at pages 57, 65 and 75, 76 and 77 of the white paper. There will also be found the
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
answer of the companies mentioned to the assertion that the export of power may mean that the day is being postponed when consumers in our own country will get lower rates.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did they suggest to what time the reduction would continue?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Every grant of permission for export should be made subject to clearly defined terms and conditions; in the granting of permission parliament would fix a definite time limit and a definite amount of power related to the quantity that is available and required in Canada. It would doubtless require that there must be reasonable belief that the surplus power to be exported would not and could not be used at home at the time of the export.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Within a reasonable time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Within a
reasonable time. I am simply outlining the argument; I am not saying that it is substantial or otherwise. I think it is right that we should see that there are two sides to this question.
The strongest argument against the export of power is between that referred to by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), namely, that once power is exported it is difficult to retrieve; that it creates vested interests in other lands, and that international complications are almost certain to result once an effort is made to stop the export of power that has been exported for a certain length of time. As I mentioned in the earlier part of my remarks, in 1914 the governor in council found it necessary to deal with that phase of the question. The Public Service Commission of the state of New York had made representations to the effect that power which was -being imported from Canadian sources could not be cut off summarily. They had given it as their opinion that the government of Canada would not be justified in stopping this export once it had been permitted for a considerable period of time. The government of Sir Robert Borden felt it necessary to take official notice of that statement and reply to it. This was done by the enactment of an order in council in which it was made quite clear that the government of Canada could not be expected to refrain from stopping the export of power at any time that it might deem it necessary to do so, and that it must be understood in the United States that any power which was being exported from Canada was being exported only by yearly licence. This yearly licence, it was asserted,

Electric Power Export
was being required that exports from Canada might be considered not as creating a permanent vested right which companies operating in the United States could hold and claim, but simply a right extending from year to year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That the licence meant what it said.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has there been any instance where power has been cut off? What about the large company the Prime Minister has referred to, the Niagara Hudson Company?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot go into details at the moment; I am just trying to give broad aspects requiring consideration. What I want to make clear is that that question did come up in 1914. I am not sure, as I have no personal knowledge, that during the war the question was not considered by the government of the day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe there was a desire on the part of some Canadian interests to take back some of the power which was being exported to the United States. The power, I have been given to understand, was being used by industries manufacturing essential war supplies, and as the United States was friendly to Great Britain at the time, and subsequently an ally, pressure, I understand was brought to bear on the Canadian government by the government of Great Britain as well as that of the United States to allow the export of power to be continued.
_ Mr. BENNETT: Certain changes were made in the Massena dam.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but I believe that is correct. A significant fact, however, is that thirty years have passed since 1907, and thus far we appear to have escaped anything in the nature of serious international complications. I think our American friends fully understand the terms upon which power is being exported and will understand whatever terms may be inserted in any permission to export power that may be granted.
At the present time a question arises as to what might happen in a critical situation were large quantities of power being exported to the United States. During the last few days we have seen references in the press to alleged representations made in Washington by the New York power authorities in conference with the president and to views said to be entertained by the president con-
51952-77J
cerning the significance of any extensive export of power from Canada to the United States. While there is no possibility, I imagine, of war arising at any time between, this country and the United States, none of us can say that there are not possibilities at some time in the future-I hope and pray they may never arise-that the United States, may be drawn into a war into which Canada may not be drawn, or conceivably that Canada might be drawn into a war into which, as for awhile was the case during the great war, the United States may not be drawn. In either case the question might arise as to how far neutrality was being preserved by the country that was not at war if, on the one hand, it was supplying power to a nation that was at war, or on the other was receiving from: a nation that was at war the power to develop-some of its industries producing essential war supplies. I believe that question is important enough to mention as a consideration of which account should be taken in considering possible future complications, and of course it is something that will have to be considered in the event of further exports of power.
These are all important considerations. If the house will permit me, I should like, for a few minutes after we resume, to place on the record one or two statements which bear out the contentions I have been making with respect to the pros and cons of the export of power. I hope, however, that enough has already been said to convince hon. members not only that there is ample justification for the government bringing forward this legislation at the present time but also for giving it the particular form it has, namely requiring that power shall hereafter be exported from Canada only with the approval of parliament, and that in the light of all existing circumstances and the merits of the case,, realizing that there is much to be said both, for and against the export of power, and that the course it may be wisest to take can best be decided only after all sides have been heard and all relevant facts carefully considered.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock..


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I had in mind before adjournment as an addition to my remarks was largely in the nature of quotations from some of the documents which are recorded in the white paper I tabled some
Electric Power Export

[DOT]days ago. If the house will allow rue to indicate in Hansard where the quotations appear it will save the trouble of putting them at length on the record. With this permission I conclude what for the present I have to say on the subject of export of power.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Electric Power Export
Again at page 227, The Water Power -Situation in Canada, by Arthur V. White, *consulting engineer of the commission, speaks *along the same line and emphasizes the value of hydro-electric power.
All the recommendations in these reports that I have been able to find emphasize the value and importance of hydro-electric power, and are against the export of it from Canada. The reasons which they give were, I submit, sound then, and if they were sound then they are stronger now, because the use of hydroelectric power has expanded. We are finding new uses for it every day, and the extent to which it will be used and required is bound to increase as the years go by. All these recommendations are in favour of a restriction or prohibition of the export of hydro-electric power.
The other feature I wish to emphasize is the importance of the policy in relation to the United States. Our international relations are a matter of tremendous importance to Canada. The necessity of at all times being on good terms with our neighbours to the south needs only to be stated to be .admitted and, on different occasions has been emphasized by the right hon. the Prime Minuter. Much has been done to ensure the maintenance of these good relations by the appointment of joint commissions and international commissions for the purpose of solving amicably any questions which may arise.
The export of hydro-electric power has been the subject of a declaration and of an attitude taken by a responsible authority in the United States. The Prime Minister referred to it this afternoon, and I propose to make a further reference to it. The Prime Minister referred to P.C. 2203 of August 25, 1914, which states:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated June 16, 1914, from the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs, calling attention to a recent opinion of the Public Service Commission of the State of New York in the matter of the application of the Canadian-American Power Corporation for permission to import an additional 46,000 horsepower of electrical energy from Canada into the United States.^ The minister observes that the opinion, in discussing the laws and regulations of the Dominion of Canada relating to the exportation of electrical energy and their effect on the question of granting the desired permit, uses the following language:
"Government Limitations Upon the Export of Electric Power from Canada The Canadian government requires the taking out of a yearly licence permitting exportation of Niagara electric power. Upon the limitations existing as to the exportation of electric power from Canada into the United States, 	'
it appears that for many years, under the so-called Burton Act, and by action of the Canadian government a very large amount of Canadian-produced Niagara electric power has been and is now being imported into this country at and about the Niagara frontier, and is being distributed for light and industrial power and railroad purposes within the State of New York in many places, embracing Syracuse to the east, the southwestern part of the state, territory south of Lake Ontario and Buffalo, and Niagara Falls in the west. The companies distributing this imported power have issued stocks and bonds in very large amounts based upon their business of distributing Canadian power. This applicant is now seeking to enter the same field. Without going into details, it seems sufficient to say that the prohibition of exportation from Canada of this present electric power which now comes into this country would paralyze business and industry of many kinds and _ would deprive numerous localities of electricity for light. American-produced Niagara power is so lar from supplying the vital needs of the section of the state above described that the immediate results of such prohibition would plainly amount to a great public calamity.
The form of securing a licence yearly from the dominion government is required by the dominion law, but such licence has been granted yearly to the other great producing electrical corporations of Canada, and no reason appears for apprehension that any discrimination would be made against the Electrical Development Companv or the Toronto Power Company, lessee. 'We have nothing before us but the suggestion that the Dominion of Canada may at some future time forbid this exportation. This commission must assume that international relations affecting so important a subject as the means of continuing great industries which have grown up in reliance upon the use of this imported power, and as well the interests of the Canadian producing companies themselves, have become fixed and subject only to such changes as will fully protect the great commercial and industrial interests and rights now served by this power brought from Canada. The time has long since passed when governments proceed ruthlessly from pure national rashness or anger to destroy the settled accepted commercial relations and formally vested rights of persons and corporations.
That is the end of the quotation. The order in council then continues:
The minister further observes that from the foregoing it is conceivable that some misapprehension may exist as to the scope and effect of the action of the government of Canada with respect to the exportation of electrical energy and as to the object toward which such action has been and is directed.	.	.
That object is apparent from and indeed is embodied in the laws, regulations, and procedure under wrhich this government has hitherto permitted such exportation and by virtue ot which alone electrical energy is exported trom Canada.	.
The Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act provides that no person shall export electrical energy without a licence, or otherwise than as permitted by such a licence; that subject to the regulations made by him in that behali, the governor in council may grant licences; that licences shall be revocable upon such

Electric Power Export
notice to the licencee as the governor in council deems reasonable in each case; that any licence may provide that the quantity of power to be exported shall be limited to the surplus after the licencee has first provided for Canadian consumers to the extent defined by the licence; that every such licence shall be revocable at will by the governor in council if the licencee neglects to comply with any of the conditions imposed with regard to the supply and distribution of power in Canada; that the governor in council may make regulations for giving effect to the objects and intention of the act.
By order in council of the 4th of November, 1007, regulations were established to give effect to the act. Under these regulations licences to export electrical energy must be applied for on or before the 1st day of April of each year, and are, therefore, valid only for one year. It is further ordered that any licence issued shall be revocable at will by the governor in council if the licencee neglects to comply with any of the conditions from time to time imposed by the governor in council with regard to the supply and distribution of electrical energy in Canada; and, moreover, that whenever such electrical energy is required for the use of purchasers in Canada any such licence shall be revocable upon such notice to the licencee as the governor in council deems reasonable in each ease.
Under established procedure the licences granted have invariably directed attention to the fact that they were granted by virtue of The Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act and the regulations made thereunder, and for some years past have expressly pointed out that as they were granted for only one year licencees must not enter into any contract which they would be unable to fulfil if the licence should not be renewed, or if the act, or the regulations made thereunder, should be changed.
The effect of these laws and the procedure is clear, and it must be abundantly apparent what the object of this government has been and is. Power or energy' generated from streams in Canada, has been as it must be, regarded primarily as a natural resource of the country to be developed and utilized to the utmost possible extent for the benefit of the country. And it was recognized that while it was consistent with that view to permit exportation so long as the demand in Canada for power should not be sufficient to absorb the whole production, yet it could be permitted only in such manner and on such terms as did not conflict with the ultimate necessity of securing and preserving this natural resource for the use of the people of Canada if and when needed by them.
In view of this object clearly embodied in the laws and regulations referred to, it seems hardly necessary to point out that the securing of a licence each year, so far from being a matter of mere " form," is one of substantial significance. Nor can it be admitted that, by reason of the existence of industries elsewhere which have used electrical energy exported from Canada, there has been created a condition or status which in any way involves an obligation on the part of this government to permit a permanent diversion of this natural resource from the country. For it is the fact that all electrical energy exported from Canada has been exported only by virtue of The Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act and the
regulations made in pursuance of it; and not only are these, as laws of the Dominion of Canada, within the notice of those interested, but the minister is- advised that it has been the invariable practice of the officers administering the act to inform licensees that they should notify all persons, with whom they might enter into contracts to supply electrical energy, of the terms and conditions imposed by the act and the regulations, and that in fact all such persons have been so notified. Their use of the electrical energy has, therefore, been subject to and in full recognition of the contingency contemplated by the act as above pointed out.
But though it is impossible to accept the suggestion, if indeed such a suggestion is intended, that anything in the nature of a vested right has been acquired, it is nevertheless recognized that many consumers who have been using Canadian exported electrical energy may have placed themselves and their business activities in such a relation to this supply of energy that any sudden, complete cessation of it would entail great inconvenience and possible hardship. This is, of course, a consideration which should receive every respect consistent with the duty of this government ultimately to secure for this country the best benefits of the natural resources appertaining to it. The regulations established to give effect to The Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act themselves provide that in the event that the exported electrical energy is required for the use of purchasers in Canada licences shall be revocable only upon reasonable notice. In accordance with the spirit of this provision, and it need scarcely be added, with every desire and intention to avoid anything that could be regarded elsewhere as an arbitrary exercise of power, the most careful consideration is being given to the question of the terms and notice on which the undoubted right of this government to terminate at any time the exportation of electrical energy may best be exercised so as to entail the least possible inconvenience to those concerned.
And while the effect and intention of the laws and regulations above referred to are apparent from their face and neither need nor will have gained anything from re-statement, yet Your Royal Highness's advisers are desirous that no injury or hardship should accrue through a misapprehension on the part of the consumers who have used or hereafter will use electrical energy exported from Canada, however unfounded that misapprehension may be.
The committee, therefore, advise, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that a copy of this minute, if approved, be forwarded to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington with the request that he make representations to the United States government in the sense thereof in order that the matter may properly be brought to the attention of whatever persons or interests are concerned.
All of which is respectfully submitted for approval.
(Sgd.) Rodolphe Boudreau,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
I would draw particular attention to the paragraph which points out that it was considered necessary to send this to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, in order
Electric Power Export

that representations might be made in the right direction in connection with this position. . Here, I think, is a plain warning as to the attitude likely to be taken by the users of power in the United States, if exported from Canada, even under an annual licence and with the distinct provision in the licence that it may be cancelled at any time.
I say that, because those were the very provisions which were in the licences referred to in this memorandum. With that warning before us, I say we should be very careful of the action we take in connection with the export of hydro electric power.
The sixth annual report of the commission of conservation to which I have referred, quotes this very memorandum at page 146, and refers to the Burton Act of the United States which dealt with the importation of hydro electric power from Canada. Again there is contained the warning against the export of hydro electric power. I quote from page 147 of this sixth report:
The Burton Act empowered the issuance of revocable permits for the transmission of additional electric energy from Canada into the United States, and it may further be emphasized that the Canadian measure-the Fluid Exportation Act-provides that licences for the export of power from Canada are also revocable. What, then, is the real import of a statement such as is recorded by the Public Service Commission of the State of New York? It^ in effect, proclaims that the people of New York need not be concerned about permits and licences, revocable or otherwise. It states plainly that, if they can only succeed in once getting this electric energy from Canada into the United States, and have it distributed so that their citizens and industries become dependent upon it, then Canada could not hope to alter these conditions. In the words of the commissioners, the conditions in the state would "have become fixed, and subject only to such changes as will protect the great commercial and industrial interests and rights now served by electric power brought from Canada/' that is to say, as will protect "the great commercial and industrial interests and rights" in the United States.
That was the view taken by the commission at that time, upon this memorandum referred to in this order in council. Again I say that in this house, desiring to maintain at all times the most amicable relations and to avoid anything having the semblance of friction or misunderstanding, we should be very careful indeed in the matter of this export of hydro electric power, particularly in view of this warning that has been given both by the power commission of the state of New York and by our own commission of conservation.
It has been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that there may .be some temporary financial advantage in the export of hydro-electric

power. Well, it is difficult to say just where that advantage is to be found, whether with the consumer or with some company desiring to export power. We ought, however, to weigh any temporary financial advantage against any possible future complication, and we should take the long view of the matter rather than the short view. Taking the long view, and considering also the tendency of industrial development and the added uses to which hydro-electric power may be put,
I submit that it is not in the interests of the Canadian people to export hydro-electric power at this time. This matter is, I understand, receiving some attention in the United States. I have reason to believe, from something I read in the newspapers, that the president himself is giving the matter some attention, and that it is causing him some concern. I believe he sees in it possible complications and difficulties in the future.
If I wanted to give an example of the desirability of retaining Canadian resources and the difficulty of getting them back once they have gone from Canada, I think I might not inappropriately refer to the diversion of water at Chicago. There is an instance where there is not a licence or a permit; where there is no authority whatever, and where the supreme court of the United States has directed a reduction in the amount of the diversion. The question has been the cause of long, extended negotiations and discussions between the government here and the government at Washington; yet we have not succeeded in terminating that diversion, which is to the disadvantage of the Canadian people. I contend that if this condition prevails when there is no authority and no right, if a licence is granted and power is exported under that licence it would .be very much more difficult to get that power back when it is required here than it has been to lessen the diversion of water at Chicago..
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, in essence and principle this bill is the same as the one I introduced and which passed this house. I believe it should commend itself to the favourable judgment of the house, and I propose to support it on the second reading.


Hon. W. EARL ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly the bill which is now before the house deals with one of the most important national issues that have come before parliament this year, an issue which, in the words of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) may be more important than perhaps any other matter that may come forward this session. Before dealing with the bill, however, I feel that I should reply to

Electric Power Export
the reference to myself made by the Prime Minister in his remarks this afternoon. With all due respect to the press, which seldom makes a mistake, I wish to make it clear to him, that what I said at Petrolia the other day was not quoted quite exactly, and before I conclude my address I shall repeat just what I said at that time. When the right hon. gentleman suggested that I ran for cover and came to this parliament, it occurred to me that no man should know more about running for cover than he does, because I well recall the days when he had to run to cover from his own county in order to get elected to this house. He ran from Waterloo to Prince Edward Island, from Prince Edward Island to North York, and from North York he went a3 far as he could, to Prince Albert, in order to get elected to this house.


Mr. GOLDING:: He was not leading a party in another house.


William Earl Rowe: No; but I wish to say to my hon. friend that I sat in this house when the right hon. Prime Minister had no seat here, and was still leading his party. May I say also to my hon. friend that I have been elected more often for my riding than he has been elected for his. I might also say that had I run for cover I would probably be in the legislature at the present time. But I think those who know my record best know that I have run for cover very little, and since 1925 I have been elected in my own riding more often than any other hon. member in the house has been.


Ernest Lapointe: I deny that.


William Earl Rowe: I am excluding such supreme characters as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who has gone back to his electors time after time to be reelected as a minister. Why, he being Minister of Justice and with the great record he has, we would not even have defeated him in our own riding. However, I wish to say that I am not as easily frightened as the right hon. Prime Minister might suggest. I have not been in politics as long as the right hon. gentleman, but I am not at all frightened nor do I run for cover either from either the little premier of Ontario or the great Prime Minister of Canada himself.
The bill that is now before the house deals with an issue which we all recognize as being of great national concern to-day, and one which may be of great international concern to-morrow. Under this new state of affairs, this new parliamentary procedure that is going to be put into force, of course we shall have an opportunity to discuss in more detail the
merits and demerits of power export as such when any of these private bills are presented to parliament. Therefore it is not my purpose, to deal with the merits of power export in itself, nor could I do so under the rules of this parliament. I realize that, by the rules of parliament, on the second reading of a bill I am constrained to discuss the merits of the bill itself, and, as the Prime Minister very properly said this afternoon, its broader principles. I hope, however, that before the bill is brought into the house for third reading, hon. members will be able to ascertain more clearly the desires and purposes of the government, so that they may know more definitely whether the bill is carelessly drafted or cleverly devised.
The Prime Minister reviewed the chief feature of the whole issue, namely the surplus power. It was said that this bill is the same as that introduced by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart). Why, Mr. Speaker, the word "surplus" is clearly and somewhat cleverly, carefully or carelessly dropped from the clause in relation to the export of power, except in the single instance where it is for temporary or emergency purposes.
I feel, however, that there is one thing more in the bill that is a little less conspicuous than that. That is the way in which the government have evaded their own responsibility in this great national issue. I repeat what the Prime Minister has said, that this is a great national issue, perhaps the most important matter to come before this parliament. As I sat and listened this afternoon to the right hon. gentleman, I could not help thinking that I have never before listened to anyone talk so long about an issue so great and say so little. I compliment the right hon. gentleman upon that art, for he has long since established a record in this regard, but not even his most ardent supporter sitting behind him-


Mr. BRADETTE:: Is the hon. member trying to do the same thing?


William Earl Rowe: Not even my hon. friend who has just spoken knows how his right hon. leader is going to vote on this great national issue. This issue is of tremendous national concern; this issue has been growing every year. It enters more and more into our domestic life and into our great industrial life. Surely an issue of such magnitude is worthy of some leadership by the Prime Minister of the day, a Prime Minister with a top-heavy government behind him of 170 members. When have we seen in this house a Prime Minister use a private bill to cover up government responsibility?
Electric Power Export

I realize that if I said that this was almost the same as using a private bill to deal with tariff matters, someone would immediately say, "Oh, no, that is a different matter." May I remind the house that it might just as well be suggested that the national policy of this country in connection with immigration or any other complicated international problem should be ushered into this house by means of a private bill in order to relieve the government of responsibility. I have never run for cover in that way, but I say to the Prime Minister that so far as this issue is concerned, he ran for cover in major style.
The procedure of parliament and the responsibility of government are involved in this matter. We heard the Prime Minister this afternoon quote from Doctor Beauchesne's book. I think he could have gone to any other set of rules; I think he could have quoted the experiences in the older parliament in Great Britain, and they would all have shown that a private bill, such as these private divorce bills that come before the house, must deal with a person, a corporation, a municipality or a district. Yet we have a matter of national concern, a matter wdiich may in time become of international concern, brought before us in the form of a private bill. I said in Lambton that the Prime Minister perhaps was frightened and was taking refuge behind a private bill rather than saying where he stood. We heard what he said this afternoon to the effect that he had made up his mind in November to bring this issue before parliament; we knew that before this afternoon; but I venture to say that some of his supporters did not know until very recently that this matter was to be brought in dressed up as a private bill. This great government with 170 members behind it-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: " Hear,
hear," says the brave Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie).


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He did not say that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not say a word.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of National Defence, the whip and the Prime Minister sit with 170 members behind them and bring up in parliament, hiding behind the petticoats of a private bill, one of the greatest issues to be brought up this year. It is true that some time ago a similar bill reached second reading in this house; but inasmuch as this bill gives to parliament an authority which has often been exercised by

order in council, it also transfers government responsibility to a private bill. I submit that while this may be a gesture toward parliamentary freedom, it is not much of a compliment to responsible government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is one supporter.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friends think there should be more noise, but may I submit that those who make the most noise sometimes think the least. So far as the principles of this bill are concerned, I submit that the main point is the procedure of parliament. The Prime Minister cannot refer to any other instance where a matter of great national concern has been ushered into this house by a private bill. I believe he is justified in bringing the matter before parliament; but where is government responsibility in connection with this issue?
We have heard repeatedly that this is one of our most outstanding issues. We have heard repeatedly that it is growing in prominence every year. We know now that electricity is brightening the homes in the countryside just as it brightens the homes in the cities. We know it is turning the machines in the farm barns just as it turns the vast machines in our factories. It is a recognized fact on both sides of the border that where * you have cheap power, there will population be found. In proof of this all you have to do is to look at the map. Great centres of population will be found in the Niagara district and along the St. Lawrence. This fact has been recognized by both countries. I can well remember being in this house when the so-called Sifton interests brought up a private bill in connection with the Georgian Bay canal. May I remind the house of such eminent citizens as Sir Clifford Sifton referring to the export of power and stating:
The suggestion that power can he generated on the Canadian side, and exported to the United States, and that thereafter, when it is required in Canada, the company can be ordered to deprive United States customers of the power and deliver it in Canada, is entirely illusory.
There are other instances where outstanding citizens, both in this country and across the border, have expressed the same thought. Some years ago, when there was a surplus of power, the following statement appeared in the 1920 report of the Bankers' Trust Company:
The water powers of Canada have been thoroughly investigated and are intelligently administered. The combination of cheap power, favourable living conditions for labour and good labour markets, is rapidly transforming

Electric Power Export
Canada from a country which a few years ago was almost wholly agricultural to one in which the manufacturing interests are of great and growing importance.
Mr. Henry L. Stinson, secretary for war of the United States, stated:
Canada, if we do not take it-
That is, the power.
-will use the entire amount. . .It would result in giving to Canada very possibly a large number of industries, which otherwise would be established on this side of the Niagara falls.
I am not going to weary the house at the present time with statements which, perhaps, have already been placed on Hansard. But I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are those in your great province of Quebec who in the past have held similar opinions. The late popular Minister of Justice, Hon. Sir Lomer Gouin, said some years ago:
The export of power from Canadian sources to industrial districts in the north eastern section of the United States would place at the disposal of United States industrialists a Canadian raw material from the sale of which the profits to Canada would not be large, but which would be used as an element for cheap production to bring Canadian industries into still further disadvantage in competition with those across the border.
There are others in your province, sir, who have referred to the advantage of retaining power here for the development of our own resources, among them no less than the Hon. Maurice Duplessis himself, who stated in 1933:
Natural resources are a heritage to be preserved for the people of Quebec and not to be sold to the United States for the sake of putting a few cents in the government's pocket.
Once exportation of electricity to the United States is permitted, it will never be possible to halt. It is a complete alienation for the benefit of the stronger.
The Montreal Standard stated in 1930:
The export of power is followed by an exodus of population to the centres supplied by that power.
I do not intend to read all that was said by the greatest hydro-electric power authority Canada has ever known, the late Sir Adam Beck. I shall read merely a couple of short sentences from a long interview which he gave when he was feeling very strongly on this issue. He said:
To export power to the United States would foster and build up industries in the eastern United States at the expense of those in Canada.
Canadian cities and rural communities would be deprived of further low-cost power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the date of that? Where was that interview given?


William Earl Rowe: It was given in 1925.


Ernest Lapointe: May I
inquire from where the hon. member took this quotation of a statement by the present premier of Quebec?


William Earl Rowe: I took it from a press report of a speech delivered by Mr. Duplessis in the legislature of Quebec, when speaking on the Mercier bill, on April 5, 1933.


Mr. VIEN:: Is he of the same opinion today?


William Earl Rowe: I have not been talking to him lately.
Those in this country who have had experience of the export of power at different times will [DOT] recall that the late Right Hon. Sir George Perley, who formerly sat in this place in the house, stated clearly his conclusions on the subject; and may I point out that there is not an hon. member who will say that the late Sir George Perley was not sound and unbiased on most questions. He stated that it was most difficult to recall grants of power and that he was utterly opposed to its export. I shall not read from his somewhat lengthy statement, excepting this passage:
As a matter of fact, we learned from sad experience that when we gave authority to export power we could not stop its exportation when we wanted to. It so happens that I was one who had a great deal to do with the granting almost the first application for the export of power to the United States. That happened many years ago. We went over the papers very carefully and it was therein stated, as definitely as words could make it, that the export of power could be stopped on proper notice whenever the government of Canada wished to do so, or whenever the power was required in this country. But when it came to the time when we wanted the power, during the war, the United States took the ground that industries in that country had been built up through the use of the power and that it would be an unfriendly act on our part to discontinue the export of it. I take it that from that time forward everybody was pretty well agreed that it was not in the interests of Canada to grant licences for the export of power, even if it was not required by us at that particular time.
There are many other declarations to which I might refer, but I wish only to point out that all through the years both parties in this house have had one fixed policy. Neither party has ever ushered in its policy behind a private bill. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) stated some time ago in a speech:
Export licences should not be granted, this being the settled view of the country.
That, Mr. Speaker, is definite policy; that is the responsibility of a party leader. There is more in that one sentence than we listened
Electric Power Export

to this afternoon in three hours from the Prime Minister so far as policy is concerned. However, the Prime Minister himself a very short time ago, in February, 1929, said:
What I wish to make clear at the moment is that with respect to any projected St. Lawrence development, this parliament may take it as definitely settled and understood between the United States and Canada that power generated on the St. Lawrence and belonging to Canada will not be exported to the United States but will be used for the development of our industries and our natural resources.
Surely nothing can be plainer so far as the house is concerned than that both parties have had settled views and definite policies with reference to the export of power.
Let me cite one other authority, Sir Henry Drayton, who was power commissioner during the great war. What were his experiences? The difficulties experienced during those years made both parties more steadfast in their opposition. Sir Henry Drayton said:
The first question that was taken up-
In 1917.
-was the release of power exported by Canada into the United States. It was found that it was entirely impossible to have any of this power released owing to war conditions.
He stated in this house in 1923:
It is perfectly clear that not only the government can but should see to it that no further licences are granted for the export of electric power.
There is no doubt as to where our parties have stood in the past and as to where their policies have led. I realize that this government had a policy in the past. Three times it has declared its policy. The Prime Minister stated, this afternoon, once when parliament was sitting they refused to grant an export licence, twice when parliament was not sitting they did the same thing. Three times during the last year the present government has had courage enough to say no, to follow what had been the fixed policy of both parties. If I were as desirous of running for cover as the Prime Minister intimated this afternoon that I was, would I be as strong for this policy of preserving our own resources in our own country at this time? I know what will be said in Ontario about cheaper hydro rates; but I contend that we should have a strong policy on a large issue such as this, and I say definitely-I say this in advance to those who may think I would run to cover on this issue- that I am opposed to the export of power, because I know that power, if exported, will develop cities in a country not our own. It is the thin end of the wedge. But why this change of heart at this time? The Prime Minister will say that there is no change of

heart, but at any rate there is a change of front. The present government refused three times during the past year, once when parliament was in session and twice in the recess, to do what it now seeks to do. If it was government policy to refuse then when parliament was not sitting, why is it government fear now? Why ask a private member to introduce a bill? Why did the right hon. gentleman speak for three hours this afternoon and as the man who is chiefly responsible refuse to tell the house where he stands? Will he tell us now whether he would vote for export or not?


Mr. GRAY:: Is the hon. member opposed to this?


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simeoe):: Perhaps I was unfair when I said that the Prime Minister was frightened; perhaps that was not the word I should have used. I have never seen him frightened.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is there to prevent a national issue being brought into the house?


Percy John Rowe: I grant at once that this is the right place in which to bring up national issues, but I say that the government should assume the responsibility for such issues.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is the hon. member opposed to the bill?


Percy John Rowe: I am opposed to the evasion of governmental responsibility as evidenced by this bill. I quite agree that a matter of this sort should be brought before parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Percy John Rowe: I quite
agree with that; but there is a vast difference between an issue such as we have before us being introduced by the government and it being brought forward in the form of a private bill. Such a procedure would not be allowed in the British House of Commons and it should not be allowed here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Percy John Rowe: My hon.
friends laugh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Percy John Rowe: And Canada will laugh. The Prime Minister himself indicated this afternoon the reason why an issue of this sort should be sponsored by the government when he pointed out the difference between a private bill, which concerns the welfare of private persons or corporations, and an issue such as this, which is of great

Electric Power Export
concern to the country at large. It affects not only the homes of private citizens but great national enterprises, not only one district or the economy of one province, but the development of a country. This is a national issue just as much as is the fiscal policy of the country; it is as much a national issue as is immigration. I wonder what is becoming of parliamentary procedure and the authority of parliament if a government with 170 members behind it cannot assume responsibility where a national issue is concerned but takes shelter behind a private bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: One hundred and
seventy-nine members.


William Earl Rowe: I beg your pardon-one hundred and seventy-nine. I am sorry that the Prime Minister's feelings were hurt by my saying he was frightened. During the last thirteen or fourteen years I have seen him in difficult situations in the house and have never seen him unduly frightened, and I must compliment him on his level-headed approach. But I can tell him that I, too, have been in difficult places. I just wonder whether he had more reason to be frightened than he told the house this afternoon; for it will be recalled the premier of Ontario some time ago made reference to the attitude of the government at Ottawa and, according to the Windsor Daily Star of December 17, he was reported as follows:
The federal government's opposition to export of power application is due wholly to pressure being brought to bear on Ottawa by Washington to force Ontario's and Quebec's hands on the development of the St. Lawrence deep waterways.
He stated further in the same interview:
Mr. King, in referring the matter to parliament, is again taking the line of least resistance.
He then said that he would make public Ottawa's attitude in respect to hydro's back-to-Niagara policy.


Mr. FRASER:: It put you back in this
house.


William Earl Rowe: Let me tell the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) that what Mr. Hepburn should have said was that he had his back to Niagara and his face to Montreal, and my hon. friend cooperated with him in the greatest betrayal of public confidence the province has ever known.


William Alexander Fraser: It still helped to put you
back into this house.


William Earl Rowe: I do not
need any help from my hon. friend. More than that, I stand, here to-night with as much
right as the hon. gentleman, and I have been endorsed by my own ridng as often as he has been in his-yes, and as someone says, with less expenditure. But if I had been artful in running for cover I could have found a seat in Ontario. I preferred, however, not to desert my own riding.
I would not refer to these matters but for the fact that the Prime Minister this afternoon seemed to suggest that his wild, reckless, ill-founded statements frightened me. An array of cabinet ministers went through Ontario to help the new premier-


An hon. MEMBER:: The old premier; he is still premier.


William Earl Rowe: The premier of that province is further reported as follows:
Furthermore, when visiting President Roosevelt last spring, Mr. King stopped en route and spent an hour in my office in futile effort to persuade me to accede to the request of Mr. Roosevelt on the St. Lawrence waterways.
He said that if I did not, Mr. Roosevelt might retaliate in the matter of trade barriers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend now read what I said in reply to that particular statement.


William Earl Rowe: The Prime Minister took up three hours this afternoon and he should have put it on the record. He cannot expect -me to finish his speech for him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says I took three hours. He forgets that half an hour was taken up by one of his own friends on a question of privilege. I did not begin speaking until half-past three.


William Earl Rowe: Half an hour is not much to the Prime Minister, as I have heard the right hon. gentleman speak for four hours and not say any more than he said this afternoon. The premier of Ontario, on reading, in Mr. Lyon's summary of the matter, the sentence, "Mr. King expressed no opinion himself," stated that this was characteristic of the right hon. gentleman:
That's why we couldn't go back to Niagara, he explained.
He did not say that was why he went to Montreal. He said:
Mr. King is taking made-in-Wasliington policies and trying to force them on Ontario. Mr. King has never been friendly to Ontario, [DOT] as I happen to know as member of the House of Commons. I was there when he made his "Never a five cent piece" speech. Mr. King is still licking his wounds suffered in personal defeats in ridings in this province. They have never healed, even though for the first time in his political career, this province sent him a majority in the last federal election.
Electric Power Export


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What has that to do with this bill?


William Earl Rowe: Just as much as it had to do with it when the Prime Minister told the house this afternoon that I ran for cover and had to come back to this house. This has to do with this bill-


An hon. MEMBER:: That hurt I


William Earl Rowe: No; it did not hurt as much as you think. But these are some of the statements that have caused this change of front; these are some of the statements that prompted the Prime Minister and the government of the day not to continue with their policy to submit the question to parliament but to devise a scheme to evade their responsibilities.
After the long speech we heard this afternoon, where do the government stand to-day? They are afraid to continue to say no, and they seem to be ashamed to say yes. Are they going to give their consent to the export of power or leave it to parliament, this government with 170 of a majority, groping in the dark for someone to lead them on a national issue? There is more fear and uncertainty demonstrated in the government's attitude on this issue than we have seen for a long time. It is all very well to tell the people of Canada that this is to be a democratic exercise of the rights of parliament, but may I point out in conclusion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: I take this as a compliment, Mr. Speaker, because some of the hardest boiled politicians across the way do not seem to like it. I shall not embarrass the Prime Minister-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, do not worry.


William Earl Rowe: -with any further statement, but I know that these challenges, threats, defiances and insults which have been thrown out by the premier of Ontario have left him somewhat worried. Mr. Hepburn says, "If they want a fight they are going to get a fight." To-day not only is this government embarrassed about what the premier of Ontario has said, but it is afraid of what he is going to say if it does not grant his request, and that is why it hides behind a private bill. He said further, "If the federal government turns down our request, we are going to challenge the validity of their legislation in the courts." And when the Prime Minister knows that the premier of Ontario does not care anything for the decisions of the court, then he is ashamed to

say yes and afraid to say no. We have never seen a greater spectacle of irresponsibility in this parliament than we are seeing at the present time. Again I ask and pause for the Prime Minister to tell the house and the country where he stands on this great national issue. Is there anyone within sound of my voice who will say it is not a great national issue? Is it not of as much concern as any other of our great natural resources?
We have watched the pulp wood go down the streams; we have watched the premier of Ontario dig his canals illegally, flout the authority of parliament, ignore the Minister of External Affairs and the Prime Minister's prerogative. We have watched him negotiate with another country in his letter to congress; we have watched him defy this parliament. We see him worried about the St. Lawrence waterway for fear it will take some freight from the railways, but he digs a canal in northern Ontario illegally to float down the river logs that were formerly carried by the railways. That is the reason we see in this country 20,000 more men employed in primary industries than in 1929 but 80,000 less employed in industrial activities. Why? Because of that same laissez-faire attitude which will allow cattle to be sent out of this country on foot and allow to be imported
60,000	in cans manufactured in another country; just as they send out of this country raw pulpwood and bring back seven or eight hundred thousand or a million more magazines than were coming in when they came into power; magazines teaching our children a culture, patriotism and loyalty that are not our own, teaching them a pride that is not a Canadian pride. These magazines are printed on paper made from raw logs cut in this country, floated down the streams, robbing our railroads of revenue.
This is the thin end of the wedge, and I ask the Prime Minister to-night, now that he has reviewed the history and position of this important question, this great national issue, What is his position? Why does he not state it? Is it because he is afraid of the greatest lobby that has ever been seen in this parliament? Is it because he is afraid of the same private power interests, of Beauharnois, that threatened him when he made the statement here that he would never be in favour of power going out of this country? At that time we had more power than we knew what to do with, but when the private bill comes before parliament I shall endeavour to show that there is no surplus in Ontario for export and that there will be a shortage before 1941. I ask hon. members to read Doctor Hogg's speech and they will see that before 1942 we

Electric Power Export
shall be short of power in Ontario. This is day to day politics. Why do the government hesitate on this great national issue? Is it because they are afraid of the private interests, of Beauharnois, or is it because they are afraid of what the premier of Ontario has said or of what he is going to say, afraid of his threats, afraid of his challenges, afraid of his defiances?
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Prime Minister to-day, before this bill goes through this chamber, to tell the house and tell the country where he stands on this issue. Where does he stand on an issue that concerns the development of a great country, an issue that may be not only of concern to this country to-day but of international concern to two great countries in the future? It affects your province, it affects my province; it affects your country and my country. All you need do is to look at the aluminum plant; I am not sure what riding Arvida is in, but there is not an hon. member from the province of Quebec but can see that this is the thin end of the wedge, the development of power to be sent across the line. True it will give some employment to our men here in building the plant, but it will give many times as much employment across the line. It has been estimated that power used will give eight times more employment than power developed. I believe in developing power to give eight times the employment here rather than in foreign countries.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Ever since I have been a member of this house I have taken a very great interest in the question of the export of hydro-electric power. This afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his exhaustive sketch of the history of this question of the export of power and legislation controlling it, referred to the Carillon incident. I recall it very well. In my recollection, however, we were confronted with a contract already entered into, followed by an order in council authorizing the export of that power. It covered 400,000 horsepower, although there was only 200,000 horsepower available in that particular place. Some of us brought the matter to the attention of parliament, with the result that there was an exhaustive discussion, portions of which were quoted this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). At that time, some thirteen years ago, it was a startling illustration of how careful we ought to be in all matters pertaining to the export of power; and I think as a result of the discussion in parliament in that year, and in regard to that particular incident, parliament or this House
of Commons ultimately took the stand to which the Prime Minister referred, which was crystallized in a bill in 1928, which bill was accepted by the House of Commons although it did not finally pass parliament.
While the right hon. Prime Minister was talking, I was puzzled to know what he was driving at. I listened to him with great care. I was waiting patiently for some explanation of the bill itself, because after all we are on the second reading of a bill, which means approval of the principle of the bill. The principle involved is not the export of power; it is the method of export, the regulations or legislation which will control that export. On that subject, unless I am very much mistaken, the Prime Minister was singularly silent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a moment. The
right hon. gentleman spent over two hours in a historical review, excellent in form and no doubt very useful; but I was puzzled to know what the Prime Minister was driving at, and I must confess that to this very moment I am at a loss to know what it was all about. But I propose to bring to the attention of the house what I gather to be the principle of this bill, and I want to warn the house at this stage of my remarks that this parliament owes it to Canada to scrutinize carefully the principle involved in this bill before giving it second reading tonight.
From some remarks made by speakers who followed the Prime Minister I gathered that the supposition is that the principle is the bringing into parliament of something that hitherto has been dealt with by order in council, and it has been intimated by one of the speakers, not supporting the government, that he intends to support the bill. That of course is his privilege, but I cannot justify my conscience or my record in this house in connection with the export of power in supporting the principle which is involved in this bill, and I shall explain why.
Under the old legislation power was exportable under certain conditions. I am not going to read the act; it is here; but if I seem to misstate it I shall be glad to be corrected. These conditions may be briefly summarized as follows:	First, it was exported under
licence granted by the governor in council. Second, such licence was revocable. I ask hon. members to bear that very carefully in mind. Third, it was not obligatory but it could be limited to surplus power. That authority was granted in the act; in fact it was indicated in the act. Fourth, prices at
Electric Power Export

which power could be exported were subject to control b}' regulation by the governor in council. Virtually all of these restrictions as they apply to power are abandoned in this legislation. If my hon. friends will follow me I shall indicate just how that is brought about in the legislation itself. I hold in my hand Bill No. 21. I have also the old act, which is cited on the opposite pages of the bill. It will be observed that there are two main sections dealt with. There are one or two other sections of less importance, but sections 3 and 4 of the bill are the two main ones. Those two sections replace sections 5 and 6 of the old act. We find that section 5 of the act in force at present provides:
No person shall export any power or fluid without a licence, or any power or fluid in excess of the quantity permitted by his licence, or otherwise than as permitted by such licence.
The same provision applies to the construction of pipe lines and so on. That clause is repealed. The section which is to replace it deals solely with fluids, that is, gas, oil, or substances of that kind; it does not deal with power at all. I am not quarrelling with that clause, but I want to indicate this: The section which is put in this new bill, dealing with the export of fluids, contains this provision:
Such licence shall be revocable upon such notice to the licencee as the governor in council deems reasonable in each case.
It also provides that no person shall export any fluid in excess of the quantity permitted by his licence or otherwise than in accordance with the terms of his licence. But if you turn to the next section, which separates power from fluid, then you find that the export of power is permitted, as far as the bill is concerned, without the restrictions that are applicable to fluids. I am quite aware that the Prime Minister or the government may answer that this will be covered in the private bill. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that introduces one of the main objections to this bill, because in section 4, which is to replace section 6 of the old act, there is no provision such as is contained in the old act with regard to the revocability of the licence, the control of prices, the limitation to the surplus or the other provisions to which I have referred. This new section provides:
Except as otherwise provided in this act no person shall export any power unless expressly authorized to do so by a private act of parliament, or otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in such private act.
This is not entirely new legislation; I grant that. For instance, we do permit private corporations to come to parliament with private

bills for the incorporation of loan and insurance companies. There is the Bank Act, which provides for the incorporation of a bank, and there are some other general statutes. But there is this marked distinction between these standard acts and this bill. It is this:	In
each of those statutes the main principles under which such private corporation can operate are set forth. The private act must be a ' model bill in conformity with the statute. The only variation from that ever permitted under any of these general acts is something peculiar to the company making application, such as the amount of capital, the number of directors, or matters of that kind. But the principles affecting the public interest are set forth in the statute itself which governs the incorporation of the private company.
That is where this legislation is at distinct variance with all other public statutes of this type. The Prime Minister may say, or it may be said that we shall deal with that when we come to committee; but I submit to the house that this is a vital deviation from principles of legislation, not only well recognized in parliament, but accepted throughout the country at large. And so in this particular section we find that the export of power, as distinct, mark you, from the export of fluids such as gasoline and oil'-these are linked together under the old statute-is here left entirely to the whimsies of a parliament which at some future time, or at any time, shall deal with some private bill.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, those of us who have been here for some years know- and I refer back to the Carillon incident, which is one of the most notorious of my experience in parliament-of the sort of lobbying which can be put up in support of a private bill. Who is there who, before the Railway Act of this country was brought to its present form, and we stopped what was known in the old days as free trade in railways, does not recall the lobbies that used to frequent this house and the railway committee every time a private bill was up? Who is there who does not recall private lobbies supporting private bills of the type we are entering upon here?
This is a retrograde step. We are going backward. We came past this sort of thing years ago. We have learned from bitter experience that it was infinitely better to establish in a public statute what the conditions shall be in a matter of public interest, such as the present one, rather than leave the matter to the haphazard decision of the moment, in connection with a private bill.

Electric Power Export
So for that reason I am absolutely opposed to this bill in its present form. In saying that, let me say this to the Prime Minister: When I say I am opposed to the bill in this form, it must not be said-I will not permit it to be said-that I am opposed to bringing before parliament an application for the export of power. Not at all; I am entirely in favour of that. But I am opposed to permitting any powerful corporation to come before parliament with a private bill, when we have no knowledge of what exists by way of contracts, and so on, and to lobby a private bill in connection with the export of power.
May I ask the Prime Minister this question: Is the government aware of applications pending the passing of this bill? Would the Prime Minister and government take the house fully into its confidence and tell us exactly why the government's policy, as outlined this afternoon by the Prime Minister at such great length, was changed in December or January to the form we have it in this bill? Because certainly if I followed the English language as he used it this afternoon, that policy did not appear in two hours and a quarter of his speech, and in the last quarter hour I found it difficult to understand just where he stood. My right hon. friend gave arguments this way and arguments that way; but he was extremely careful to say that he was simply putting forward what other people had said. I did not hear a single syllable from him which indicated exactly where he stood in the matter, and it was a little disconcerting to those of us who are in favour, just as much as he is, of parliamentary control, to find him in that position.
Now, I go farther than that. The measure before us, as the preceding speaker has said, removes from parliament the control of this type of business, namely the export of power, and places it partly in the hands of the private company which is able to get through parliament a bill which suits itself, and partly in the hands of provincial authorities.
Here again I speak from considerable experience. I call to witness any member who has been in the house for some years: How often have we found it that when the practice has grown up of referring something to the attorney general of a province, or to the provincial government, when such consent or approval is stated it becomes obligatory upon the federal government to carry through whatever that measure involves. Let us consider, for instance, the granting of licences to breweries. That is peculiarly a federal matter; but, as a matter of courtesy for several years it has been the custom to refer the matter to the attorney general of a province. If an attorney 51952-78
general of a province approves an application, it is a rare thing for the federal government to refuse it. I grant you that it may be done; it may be stated that in theory it can be done. But I am speaking about our experience in this sort of practice.
I submit again that in connection with such a vitally important matter as the export of power, we ought not to leave the matter in the form in which it appears in section 4 of the bill. That section effectively and actually removes from this parliament control over the export of power, and places it in the hands of a provincial government. My right hon. friend knows perfectly well that in any instance where there is a question of doubt as to the wisdom of granting such licence the responsibility will be handed to the attorney general, or whatever provincial authority may be in charge, whereas the decision ought to be made right here.
Let me say to the government that I am quite aware how difficult it is to deal with the export of power, because for some years I happened to be at the head of a department which had to do with the matter. A number of applications came before me from time to time while I held that position. It is a matter of grave concern to any minister in charge of the administration of the act to make these decisions.
For instance, I remember a reference to the question of emergency power, for which there is provision in this bill. A large paper mill in Minnesota, just south of the Canadian border at the lake of the Woods, was burned down, and an application was made for an emergency export of a certain number of horsepower. The application was granted. The term of exportation, according to the application, was to be for the period during which the old plant was being restored or reconstructed. But before we did anything we had to send a couple of experts to the point in question to study the whole situation carefully, for fear that we were being jockeyed into the position of granting an export licence which at a later time we might find it difficult to revoke.
The question of revocation is one of the most difficult confronting the country, whether it be in connection with power or any other commodity. You can argue the theory of the thing all you like; but the government and the Prime Minister above all know that once these licences are granted, once power is exported, once industries are established and, as in many cases, once the sanitary organizations of towns and cities have been built up to depend upon this electric power, it is impossible or close to impossible to revoke

Electric Power Export

such licences. Every one who has had anything to do with these matters knows that perfectly well. We have no right to delude ourselves in this manner. It is no light question. As the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) said an hour or so ago, we are extremely anxious to keep on the best of relations with the United States. Of course we are. I never go abroad without reflecting with pride upon how long these two great countries have maintained a condition of absolute friendship. But if we want to jeopardize that friendship, then let us get careless with matters of this kind. It is not that we are so unfriendly to them that we would refuse them, not at all, but we must be careful.
If we are going to export power; if we are going to part with our power, then let us come out and say so. Let us say we are going to export 200,000, 300,000 or 500,000 horsepower. Let us determine that we are going to do it as a permanent policy, because that is what it amounts to. The aluminium company made application a few months ago for permission to export power to the state of New York for the establishment of an aluminium plant in that state. Does it not stand to reason that if that export licence is granted and an industry established, we could not attempt to revoke the licence in three, four or five years. This is one industry which perhaps more than any other is dependent upon electrical power. No wonder the jurist in advising that municipality in the United States, as referred to in the order in council quoted a moment ago, stated that while it was an annual licence, to put it in the vernacular of the street, it did not amount to anything. To talk about these licences being annual is sheer nonsense. These are just like the licences granted by a municipality. As long as the people who get the licence behave decently, the licence is as good for a dozen years as it is for one. Hotels and other institutions are financed on the strength of licences, and they know that within the ambit of good behaviour their licences are secure. It is a matter of practice and custom accepted in every civilized country in the world, and particularly in this country. If a licence for .the export of power is granted and a great industry is built up in the United States as a result, there is virtually an assurance of perpetuity. If we think otherwise or do otherwise, we are deluding ourselves.
Furthermore, it has been pointed out in connection with the great lakes diversion at Chicago that there is nothing more difficult than to remedy or correct or reverse an action between two friendly countries like

the United States and Canada. If it was the case of a great country with a little country alongside and we were ready to ignore that country ruthlessly, it would be different. But that is not our way of doing business; that is not the Prime Minister's way of doing business, and it is not the way any government that represents the people of this country would do business. They are bound to give every consideration to the requirements of those who have entered into such an arrangement as a result of our action.
My second objection is that we are surrendering our control of the situation. This private bill comes before parliament carrying with it a copy of an order of the lieutenant governor in council of the province from which the power is proposed to be exported declaring that the said power is not required for other use in that province. If we approve that clause we are saying virtually to any outfit that comes before us with a private bill containing the imprimatur of approval of the province upon it, that such private bill will be accepted. I know and other hon. members know that we shall not be able to resist it. We may think that we shall, but we shall not and we do not, as a matter of fact. I can recall in the past how just such arguments have been presented before various committees of this house, and the bill has carried virtually every time where the matters covered therein were of a consistent nature.
Section 5 refers to temporary licences and deals with the question of emergency. I should like to read part of that section as follows:
... in the event of conditions arising which are deemed to constitute a temporary international emergency, may, upon such terms and conditions as he sees fit, grant temporary licences for the exportation of power . . .
The argument which I now propose to make may be drawn a little fine, but in my opinion it is important. In connection with emergency exports we say in the bill, "upon such terms and conditions as he sees fit, grant temporary licences for the exportation of power." We attach the question of temporary to emergency. This offers another argument in support of what I have said already, that where a licence is granted under ordinary circumstances it is not looked upon as being temporary. That may seem to be drawn a little fine, but I know how difficult it is to carry through the administration of these matters. I warn the Prime Minister that the very statute will be cited in support of the permanence of licences other than those granted under section 5.

Electric Power Ex-port
These are some of the reasons why I am opposed to this bill in its present form, but I should like to make one or two further general observations. The Prime Minister cited the arguments pro and con excellently, and he covered the question of the encouragement of the establishing of industries elsewhere to the damage of industry in Canada. Let us explore that argument for a moment from this standpoint. In the first place hydroelectric energy is not a commodity. We speak about exporting it as if it were something we had in abundance that we could ship out of the country in order to make money. Electrical energy is an instrument of production, just like a machine; it is part of a machine. We in Canada are in the peculiarly happy position, almost unique among the countries of the world, of having tremendous undeveloped hydro-electric power. If we administer that great resource properly, our policy will be formulated to bring everything possible to the energy instead of sending the energy elsewhere to create industry in another place. That consideration is of immense significance.
Only a few weeks ago I was talking with a prominent Canadian industrialist who has a plant also in England and does business in that country, Australia, South Africa and elsewhere. As a successful and efficient industrialist he can speak with authority, and he told me that he did not think, having in mind modern inventions and the advances of science, there was a country in the world so advantageously situated as is Canada in connection with modern industrial development. I believe he is right. He said further, "I do not need to go to other countries to produce cheaply." In one or two instances he manufactures in other countries because of tariffs; but to-day he is shipping his goods from Canada, in spite of the higher payroll here than elsewhere, into a number of countries and paying as much as one hundred per cent duty to get into those markets, and is doing so successfully. Why? The answer is, hydroelectric power in Ontario. And that power is not limited to Ontario; one thinks at once of the great province of Quebec; but there is also the west, which we sometimes regard as merely a land for growing wheat, although, as hon. members know very well, in the great rivers of the west and in the northern sections we have some of the most magnificent water powers that can be found anywhere. What we should be doing, instead of wondering how we can get around the distasteful task of refusing to export power and hand it over to outside interests, is to bend our efforts to 51952-783
find ways of utilizing more and more this great natural resource which we possess from one end of the country to the other.
My hon. friend the Minister of Mines (Mr. Crerar) recently gave a number of addresses on the mining industry of Canada. They were excellent; I congratulate him. But let him; let us; let the government; let parliament study how we can develop the electrical production of this country to supply the lowest cost power possible to our great mining industry. Let us follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) with regard to the farms of Ontario; I say this with absolute sincerity. In old Ontario and the older sections of Quebec there is not a farm which should not be in possession of electric power at the lowest possible cost to relieve the drudgery and give the families of the farmers there some taste of what modern science can do to lift the burdens peculiar to older farming conditions. There is no reason why this should not be done; it is done in Sweden and in other countries which possess no more power than we have, but which use it for the happiness of the people. There is ample scope for the development and marketing of power. The Prime Minister referred this afternoon to the statement of one of these companies which applied. I did not like the statement. They said, " If you do not grant this licence to export power, the people of Montreal cannot have a lower rate for their electrical energy."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They did not say just that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They did not put it in just that crude way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They said that if the application were granted, the users would get cheaper power.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is true; but sometimes, if we put these statements in, let us say, the vernacular they are more clearly understood. Let that company lower its rate and see how rapidly the use of its power will increase; probably they will find that any surplus they have will be rapidly taken up, so that the people of Montreal will have the advantage of the lower rates, the company will have the revenue, and the country will retain the power within the province. That is the answer I would give them.
Let parliament study how we can increase the use of electrical energy. That is real business. Look at what has been done in Ontario by the Hydro-Electric commission. I am not concerned in the squabbles and
Electric Power Export

quarrels about this, that and the other thing relating to the Hydro-Electric commission. I have driven through Ontario and seen what hydro-electric energy, administered by the commission, has done for Ontario within the scope of my own memory. I can remember very well, when I wras a boy, the first street lights that were installed. The town I lived in was lit with gas, and I recall the time when electric lights were put in. From that day to this the history of hydro-electric development in Ontario is one story of continued progress and good administration, on the whole, with, no doubt, some mistakes. Let us see if we cannot do something for the back country of these great provinces-the villages of northern Ontario, where certainly they have hard enough times, and the villages of northern Quebec. Reflect also upon the difficulties that have to be faced on the prairies. Let us consider how we can get this hydro-electric energy to the people of this country; let parliament bend its energies and its brains to constructive effort rather than to the evasion of responsibility. The Prime Minister will, I hope, take it kindly from me when I say, with great earnestness, that in this section 4 he is evading responsibility, and he is failing to include in the bill the safeguards which from the very inception of legislation on this subject, from the time of the earliest act, a copy of which I hold in my hand, have been provided-safeguards as to prices, the question of surplus, of revocability, and so on. At the least, let these things be put in the bill; let it provide some protection.
I am opposed to the principle of this bill because in my opinion it dees violence to the prerogatives of the federal house. It aggravates the differences of opinion at present existing between the provinces and the dominion. It will be recalled that much of the trouble in the last few years regarding trade and commerce is due to the fact that the federal authorities do not occupy the field of control of local trade, although they are empowered to do so. We have surrendered powers here and there to the provinces, and then we wonder why after a time they claim these powers as a right. This bill is just adding one more aggravation to the problems which already exist in that respect.
I therefore shall oppose the bill-not that I am opposed to bringing to parliament the matter of the control of the export of electrical energy, but because I believe this is a retrograde move and inimical to the best interests of the people of this country.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: I am sure the house will have been very much interested in the statements that have just been made by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens). However, I do not wish to pursue the line which both of the previous speakers have followed in discussing the question of whether it is wise or unwise to export power. I do not believe that, so far as this particular bill is concerned, that is the issue. When such a bill comes before the house, the position that my colleagues and I will take will be taken without hesitation.
If I understood the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon, the purpose of the bill is to give to parliament the right to decide whether power shall be exported or not. From the statements made by the Prime Minister it appears that the government had three choices in mind. First of all, there was a question whether there should be appointed a public utility commission to decide upon matters of this sort. Personally I am much opposed to any such matter being decided by such a commission. Then they had under consideration the question whether the matter should be referred to the railway commission. I am also opposed to a matter of this kind being [DOT]referred to the railway commission. The railway commission is a rate-fixing body, and in my opinion it could not give a more intelligent answer to questions of this kind than parliament can. I have a greater objection, however, to both of these suggestions. I have always objected to the delegation to others of powers that should be exercised by parliament. In a matter of this sort parliament is the body which should decide whether power should be exported or not.
If, as stated by the Prime Minister this afternoon, the main purpose of the present bill is to give the house an opportunity, under the auspices of a private bill, to state whether it is in favour of the export of power, then I am in favour of a bill of that kind. Far too long have I claimed that too much power has been vested in the cabinet or the governor in council or through the medium of administration by order in council, and I am pleased that the government, even at this late date, for the reasons stated by the Prime Minister and probably for other reasons, has seen fit to bring in a measure of this sort. Now that the government has extended, so to speak, the sphere of activity of this house and its right to determine certain matters which previously have been determined by

Electric Power Export
order in council, I trust that this principle will be further applied to other matters which at the present time come almost exclusively under the jurisdiction of the governor in council.
For these reasons I am going to vote for the second reading of the bill. I shall do so, however, with the proviso that some of the matters raised here to-day will be gone into in greater detail when the bill is before the committee, because I believe, with the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Stevens), that there are certain ambiguities in the bill itself. But I hope that they will be cleared up satisfactorily before the bill is given its third reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government is to be congratulated upon having accepted the principle which this house unanimously adopted some years ago. It is obvious that when the house unanimously accepted the measure which was proposed by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), it had in mind that parliament rather than the governor in council should deal with this question, and in furtherance of that principle this measure is submitted to the house. I differ entirely, however, as to the method to be pursued for the purpose of giving effect to the principle which is being adopted.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) contended that the bill did not contain reference to the conditions. Of course, he is entirely in error in that, because it provides that the private bill shall contain the conditions and terms under which the licence shall be granted. That is exactly the provision which exists to-day; only to-day the terms and conditions are settled by the governor in council and not by a private bill. In one case the parliament of Canada will deal with it; in the other the executive deal with it under the full authority entrusted to them under delegation of powers from this parliament. To attain the end which the Prime Minister had in mind, it was only necessary to provide that there should be an amendment or addition to the existing statute. That is all. It was not necessary to go further than merely to continue the existing legislation and add to it an amending provision, that any licence granted under the provisions of this act should not become effective until approved by parliament. This would mean that a bill would be introduced into parliament ratifying and confirming the granted powers contained in the licence. It would then pass this house and the senate and be assented to by the crown.
That, I submit, would be the proper method of dealing with the matter. It would involve, of course, what was intended, that the question of policy should be settled by the government of the day; for there is no possible way of avoiding or evading what it does appear to me must be taken for granted, namely, that any question which affects export is a matter of policy on the part of the dominion government and of this parliament. This government has at all times to command the support of a majority of the members, and a question of policy must be always determined by the government and submitted to the house for its consideration. When you are dealing with a question of export you are dealing with a matter of policy over which this dominion alone has jurisdiction. It is not a question of what might be thought by the province; it is a question of the central power, the Dominion of Canada, the entity called Canada having control over export. And that central power having that control over export, that power must be exercised, not having regard to the peculiar interests of a little community or locality, but from the point of view of the national good, the broad general outlook of what most affects the Dominion of Canada, and of all that concerns its well-being and the prosperity of its people. That is the question which must be settled; it is not a matter of what may be thought by this or that interest.
I say that because it appears to me perfectly clear that, having approved the general principle, as this house has done, parliament should determine the question of the issuing of licences for the export of power from this country; and that power should be exercised by a very simple method, namely, by providing that any licence issued should become effective only when approved by parliament. That is not an unusual procedure. In the United States certain appointments are subject to ratification by the senate, and in various other countries there must be approval by parliament.
Now there arises another question, a question of a private act. It seems to me intolerable that it should be thought that in this free parliament a corporation, a group of individuals or a community should be able-to lobby parliament into the granting of licences. It seems to me monstrous that such a suggestion should even be made. I wonder if hon. members have given due consideration and thought to the principle involved in that part of the bill. Any bill by means of which parliament is to be asked to deal with this important matter
Electric Power Export


An hon. MEMBER:: Do what they are told.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, thank you. Do what they are told, but by whom? That is the point, by whom? By the private interests or by the government of the country? By the lobbyists, by the private bill, by the introducer of the private bill, or by the government of Canada, which alone has power to deal with the export of power? Which is it to be? I am glad my hon. friend put it, "Do what we are told."


Ross Wilfred Gray: One of your friends.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, I thought it was one of the hon. gentlemen opposite speaking the truth for once.
Now let us go a step further. Does the house realize the principle that is involved? Remember, the control of export is one of the highest functions of government. Does the house realize that it affects revenue? I doubt the constitutionality of a private bill that authorizes and licenses the export of power. I doubt the power of any private member, under the British North America Act, to introduce into this house a bill that provides for the export of anything. Why? f Because it involves revenue. The very speech made this afternoon shows how it touches revenue, and not only the revenue of this government. Mark you, we get a fee under the statute. We get revenue under the statute. So do the provinces, but we do also. It is not the provinces alone; we have been getting revenue. Now for the first time, Mr. Speaker,
I am told that a private member con introduce into this house a bill that deals with the revenues of Canada. At the appropriate time I propose to point that out and to ask whether or not it is within the constitutional power of a private member to do so.


William Daum Euler: He does not propose the
expenditure of money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He proposes the collection of it, and that involves expenditure as well; for there can be no licence issued that does not involve inspection. However small the expenditure may be, if it is a charge upon the taxpayers for fifty cents or fifty thousand dollars the principle is the same.


William Daum Euler: Very far-fetched.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not far-fetched at all; it is a fact. No man knows that better than the minister who has just spoken, because in his department every year he asks us to vote the sum of $750, and sometimes more, with respect to that matter. In the estimates appears a provision for this very expenditure, and if expenditure is involved how can a private member, under our constitution deal with the matter? There is expenditure; there is collection of revenues, and you are going to have a private member deal with it, a private member whose legislation is not that of the government. Terms, conditions, provisoes, limitations-all these things are to be fixed and determined. Now what are you going to do about that?


Mr. MacLENNAN:: That is a lot for a private member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On reflection probably the hon. gentleman will realize that this touches the piovince of Nova Scotia and the island
Electric Power Export

of Cape Breton. Anything that affects export, be it small or large; be it pulpwood or power; be it any of the products of this country; whatever it may be, cannot be dealt with under our constitution as thus far interpreted in our history except through governmental action. Did anyone ever before hear of anyone introducing a private bill to deal with the question of limitation upon exports; or to grant a power to break in upon a general act of prohibition and destroy its value for the purpose of making an exception to the general rule? Mr. Speaker, as old as some of the oldest statesmen in England you have this provision:	Whenever duty and
interest conflict there is bound to be loss to the body politic unless the greatest care is exercised. On the one hand there is our duty: Follow the constitutional practice and look to the government to enunciate a policy which we can vote for or against. On the other hand there is the interest of the private concern. I pointed out this afternoon the significant fact that those who had applied for the licence to which the Prime Minister referred had withdrawn their application in November, and that was the time when this device to circumvent the provisions of the refusal under the statute was first heard of. That in itself is a significant and serious fact. If you will look at the white paper you will find it. There it is.
I shall content myself, Mr. Speaker, merely with saying that I am in favour of what we unanimously resolved to do some years ago, namely, to permit this parliament to exercise its power with respect to the granting of licences for the export of power. Second, I submit that the proper method to exercise that power would be to provide that no licence should become effective until such time as it had been approved by parliament. Then you would have the government submit to the house a measure ratifying and approving the action taken, if a licence was issued, and of course declining to do so if no licence had in fact been issued. Third, I submit that this bill contravenes evei-y established precedent in leaving in the hands of a private member the determination of the destiny of this country and its people.


William Daum Euler: Parliament has control over it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not parliament; a private member.


William Daum Euler: It does not follow that his bill is going to carry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why, of course not. The hon. gentleman has just said what I was desirous that he would say. The initiative that makes it possible to determine any question arises from a private member, and when a private member exercises initiative upon a question which determines the destiny of a country you are violating the well established principles of our constitution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Very childish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) suggests that that is not so. Let us look at the matter just a little more narrowly. Power is to be exported from this country. One of our assets is to be carried out of Canada, just as much as though you took any asset we have and carried it over to a foreign country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If parliament agrees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; I am coming to that. That asset is to be taken away, not if parliament agrees but if parliament gives assent to a private act which is governed by interest, as pointed out by Bacon; as long ago as that. Interest is the dominating factor in a private bill. Interest always has been. The very rule that was read this afternoon indicates that; and for the national good, the welfare of the state, we are now to substitute a private bill which is governed and controlled by private interest. Always remember that. Every private bill is based upon the assumption that for some reason private interest shall prevail over the fixed, universal rule.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely a member has the right to introduce even a public bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not say he has not the right to introduce a public bill, but this is said to be a member introducing a private bill. The Prime Minister dwelt upon that at length and cited authorities as to its being a private bill. If I were dealing with it as a public measure I would use entirely different arguments, but what the member is introducing is a private bill and the basis of all private bills is interest. That is as old as the parliament of Britain. The conflict between interest and duty is the conflict, not of to-day or of yesterday, but of the centuries. It is a conflict of duty on the one hand and interest on the other; interest, with all it means, with all its ramifications, with all that is involved of wealth, with all that is involved of privilege, with all that is involved in the benefits that accrue, as against duty which

Electric Power Export
is measured by the general rule. And when you say that that general rule shall be invaded by a private member introducing a private bill, you have struck a blow at the institutions of this country from which it will not readily recover. These are the days in which we know democracy is being attacked on all fronts. The whole theory of parliamentary control is democratic, as the Prime Minister properly said this afternoon. That is democratic; but if in order to make it effective you substitute interest for duty, you substitute the interest that invades the general rule and take the operation of the private statute out of the general rule, then instead of helping democracy you have struck a blow at it.
There is no member of this chamber who does not realize that. That is the reason why the conflict as to whether one should vote for the second reading of this bill becomes acute. But it appears to me that while one can merely record his opposition to the principle of a private member with a private bill, actuated and governed by interests, taking a given undertaking out of the operation of a general rule-while one is opposed to that, one realizes that, as indicated this afternoon by the Prime Minister, the government's policy is to seek the opinion of parliament. And on the theory that the governing principle is to seek the approval of parliament, I shall be content by merely recording my dissent from the general principle involved in the bill-, and give notice that when the bill is in committee I shall seek to modify those provisions to the extent of providing that any licence granted under the statute shall not become effective until approved by parliament.
That is all you need, all that is ever needed, and all that has ever been needed. It is true that it still leaves responsibility with the government. It still leaves the question of saying yea or nay with the government. It still involves that the governor in council shall make up its mind and arrive at a conclusion. It still means that with doubts and conflicting opinions the government has to decide yes or no. It has been entrusted with that power, and that is its duty.
And now to avoid it, the government says, "We have nothing to do with that at all; we merely pass a statute which says that this house and a private bill will determine what they want." That is to be the voice of parliament, touching an issue, Mr. Speaker, which is not private by any stretch of the imagination. It touches the lives and livelihood of thousands of Canadians born and unborn. It affects the industrial life of this country and the development of our resources. When the
private bill is before the house I shall endeavour to indicate some of the reasons why we should vote against any export licence being given at all-not only on grounds of sound economy, but also on the great international issues to which the president of the United States referred in the short report made the other day. Perhaps the Prime Minister in his reply, closing the debate, will be able to indicate to what extent he may have further knowledge of what was in the mind of the president when he made those observations; for if those observations as reported in the press meant anything, they meant that we should not grant a licence for export. Why? "An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
To foresee; to look into the future; to see the possible complications; to realize what may happen that is what the president was directing attention to just as in 1914 the government of Sir Robert Borden found it essential to pass the order in council they did to negative once and for all, so far as they could, the thought that a vested interest could be acquired under a yearly licence.
There is an acute distinction between granting an export licence to an existing industry, and granting an export licence to a utility for distribution; there is all the difference in the world. To grant an export licence to a company for its industry, and for a limited period of a year or two years, while it is building up its power plant, is one thing. To grant a licence for the export of power to a distributing company, or to a utility, means just what was pointed out by that New York commission, and what was pointed out in the Astor hotel at the banquet at which the then president of the United States was reported to have said that it would be regarded as an unfriendly act.
If you have regard to these circumstances, they afford ample reason why at the proper time we should vote against the granting of licences by private bills. But that is not the point now before us, and I shall have to content myself by simply saying that it is the principle of democratic control, of parliament having control. I still believe the unanimous opinion arrived at by this house some years ago was sound; that all that is essential to exercise that control is that we should merely amend the present statute by saying, "And no licence granted under this statute shall become effective until approved by the parliament of Canada." That would end the matter. There would never be any uncertainty or anything else then with respect to it.
Electric Power Export

Terms, conditions and provisoes would rest with the general act. The private act would no longer have existence.
Approval given by this parliament to the order in council passed by the executive under the grant of powers made in 1907, which is consonant with the general principles which govern under British institutions, the exercise by the executive of the power conferred upon it by parliament-because parliament is not always sitting-would have thus been maintained, and the approval given by parliament to an order in council granting a licence would ensure that democratic control over the granting of licences which is essential to our wellbeing.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having trespassed upon your time to the extent I have, because I desire not to confuse two issues- one the enabling act and the other the private act. The private act involves consideration of all these questions to which the Prime Minister referred this afternoon. The enabling act refers only to the general principle as to how the control of this parliament shall find sxpression in an enabling act.
When the opportunity arises, I shall submit to the committee of the whole house the amendments which I think are essential for the purpose of giving effect to the principle this house has heretofore unanimously adopted.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the debate, and it is not my intention to make any extensive remarks. However, I am forced to say a word, in view of the observations of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and especially his appeal in favour of democratic control.
He protests against the bill because of the removal of democratic control. Well, this is a bill under which it is asked that parliament exercise a power which, in its wisdom, years ago it had delegated to the governor in council. Instead of this power being exercised by delegates, this bill will bring about a new situation whereby parliament itself, the representatives of the people of Canada assembled here, will decide as to whether or not there should be an export of power, through a licence to any party who may be asking for it.
The other day the house spent the whole afternoon discussing a resolution moved by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone), during the course of which discussion many hon. members complained that the government was arrogating to itself most of the powers of parliament and that private members had no more authority or power. They asked that this should be changed. To-night

we have heard the other claim made, that the government is entrusting too much of its powers to the hands of private members. I heard my right hon. friend say that it is almost a constitutional crime that a private member should be allowed to introduce a bill dealing with questions of this kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; to initiate this form of legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: As I said when my right hon. friend was arguing this, a private member has the right to initiate a public bill. If my right hon. friend wants a public bill instead of a private bill, what will be the difference when the legislation is initiated? They will be exactly the same. There is just a slight difference in the procedure. A private bill must be preceded by a petition. The whole public will know that a petition has been made to this parliament asking for the passing of a bill. The people of Canada will know in advance of the application. When the bill reaches its second reading hon. members will have an opportunity to express their views; but instead of being discussed in committee of the whole, the private bill will be referred to a select committee of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A standing committee.


Ernest Lapointe: It would be referred to a standing committee which has the power, under the rules of the house, to hear counsel and witnesses and all evidence necessary and essential for a proper decision to be arrived at before a report is made to the house. What is the crime being committed by the government in saying that it shall be a private bill instead of a public bill? I have not consulted my colleagues about the matter; but if that is the only objection I do not think we should fight over it. If a change from a private bill to a public bill will enlist the unanimous support of the house, then I think my right hon. leader will be quite willing to change it. There is practically no difference when it comes to discussion in the house.
I think the government should be commended for giving to parliament the full say in the matter. My right hon. friend has spoken of democratic control. The complaint in recent years, not only in Canada and the old country but everywhere else, has been that too much of the control of parliament has been removed. On different occasions in this house the right hon. gentleman has referred to that remarkable book, The New Despotism, by the Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart, in which the complaint is made that

Electric Power Export
instead of parliament being allowed to decide certain vital issues, this is done by governor in council. Have we not heard considerable both in and out of this house of government by order in council? This is exactly the opposite principle; it is restoring to parliament its control. If that is not democracy, I do not know what the term means.
I do not think I have any more to say on this matter. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) said that with this matter being dealt with by a private bill, with parliament having the control instead of the governor in council, there will be tremendous lobbying. Are members of parliament afraid to exercise their rights and powers as members of parliament? Have we come to the stage where a parliament in Canada will refuse to exercise its proper control over the affairs of the country because it is afraid it will not be able to do so honestly ? As far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we trust ourselves. I have enough confidence in members on all sides of the house to be sure that they will do their duty, as we shall do ours. I repeat that this is restoring control to parliament in connection with a vital issue. I agree with my right hon. friend when he says that there are certain matters which are so important that the governor in council cannot deal with them. Parliament has reserved to itself control over the tariff and many things of that kind. This matter is so important that I think parliament might very well keep to itself the right to dispose of the matter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This afternoon when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was speaking, I asked a question as to the probability of the revocation of licences for power export. I have had some experience in companies that required considerable electrical horsepower with which to operate. When I asked my question I had in mind the Niagara-Hudson Company of New York state, which imports a large volume of power from Canada and has for many years. The right to export that power has not been revoked and I doubt very much if it could be. As has been said by several hon. members, the revocation of the right to import power that has been imported by an importer in the United States for any length of time would cause trouble between the two countries. That is the opinion I hold. I did not get any reply to the question I asked as to what course would be followed in revoking this right. I do not believe it could be done without causing trouble between the two countries.
There is another point to be considered. As the Prime Minister and other hon. members who have made an investigation of the matter know, there has been put into operation in Great Britain a plan whereby there will be a tremendous increase in the amount of power required in that country, and I believe the very same thing will happen here. As the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) predicted, before two or three years a large amount of additional horsepower will be required in Canada. That has been the result in the old land. As hon. members who were in Great Britain last summer know, all the great railroads adjacent to London are being rehabilitated for the use of electric power. The same thing may happen in this country. If it does, and we have exported large amounts of horsepower which cannot be revoked without causing trouble, where will this country be so far as the supply of power is concerned?
One thing about this whole proposal that I do not like is that in renewing the contracts for power with certain companies, the Ontario government, finding it has more power now than apparently it requires, is asking us to permit that government to export it. Once it is exported there will not be enough power left, and if the same consequences as regards increase in demand follow in this country as have occurred in the old land, we shall find ourselves in great difficulties.
What happened in the old country as a result of the vast increase there in the demand for power? I have in my hand a book which I got last summer from one of the government offices; it is a report on electricity distribution. The result of what they have been doing over there-and the same can be done here- shows that a very large increase in the amount of power consumed reduces the cost to the consumers. Sales of electricity to consumers for all purposes increased from 3,512 million units in 1920-21 to 11,467 million units in 1933-34. The same thing would happen here if efforts were made to carry out the policy outlined by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe and the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), to give the farming community of this country electrical power at reasonable cost, thereby reducing the drudgery. Why is it that throughout this country to-day men are leaving the farms? Why is it that the number of women on the farms has been so greatly reduced? In a part of the country with which I am quite familiar, on 1,400 acres there is just one woman. There are numbers of bachelors, but no women for them to marry, because the drudgery is so great on the farms that the women cannot be induced to stay there. The hon. members for Dufferin-Simcoe and Kootenay East
Electric Power Export

suggested, what is quite true, that this country can use every horsepower that can be produced, if it is properly disposed of, without necessity for exportation. There is a lot behind this proposed exportation of power which I do not believe the Canadian people will favour.
To return to the figures of production in the old country, illustrating the increase in the consumption of power as a result of what they are doing over there: for lighting, heating and cooking the increase has been from 582 million units in 1920-21 to 3,916 million units in 1933-34; and for power supplies-that is one of the things which has been spoken of this evening-the increase has been from 2,499 million units in 1920-21 to 6,392 million units in 1933-34.
What has been the result of these large increases in the demand for power so far as costs are concerned? The charges for electricity in the old land, as measured by the average revenue received per unit of electricity sold, decreased in the case of lighting, heating, cooking and shop and office purposes, from 5-75d. in 1921-22 to 2 [DOT] 28d. in 1933-34, and in the case of power, from l-69d. in 1921-22 to 0-73d. in 1933-34. These figures show very clearly that an increase in power consumption will give a large decrease in the selling price.
We have been told that if we do not permit the export of power from this country the Ontario consumer will pay more for his electricity. That has not been the result in the old land. There, through the great efforts made to increase power production and power distribution, the price to the consumer and the manufacturer has gone down. We can do the same thing here.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 11, 1938