1955-02-25

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Hazel Irene McKay Puttee.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Demetra Denis Varverikos Kotsos.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Therese Des-champs Pare.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Beatrice Edith Paige Bouchard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Sheila Edith Emily Little Staniforth.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Elias Helakos, otherwise known as Louis Childs.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Albina Le-gault Desjardins.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Maia Piibe Paul.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of John Russell Watt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of William Watson Southam.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Marie Joyce Kane Grant.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Anton Josef Cermak.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Myriam Miche-line Weil Goldschmied.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 178, respecting the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Pembroke.-Mr. Forgie.


[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	L.	S.	St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister) moved:
That when this house adjourns at six o'clock p.m., on Wednesday, April 6 next, it stands adjourned until Monday, April 18, 1955, at 2.30 o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	L.	S.	St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister) moved:
That on Monday, February 28, 1955, and every Monday thereafter to the end of the session,
government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except the introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the Canadian Press dispatch, of which I have sent him a copy, in which a provincial premier states that the federal government last July rejected a request that a dominion-provincial conference be called to deal with unemployment?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I note that the Canadian Press report referred to in the question does not quote Premier Bennett's actual words and I am therefore somewhat reluctant to make any comment. However, the premier of British Columbia did write to me on July 14 last on the subject of the provision of assistance for unemployed employables, and in his letter he stated that "the wisdom of holding a federal-provincial conference may commend itself to you".
While this could hardly be construed as a request for such a conference the government, in its reply to the premier, stated that it felt that the provision of unemployment insurance and other measures by the federal government relieved the burden of the provision of relief of the unemployed to the point where provinces and municipalities could carry out their constitutional responsibilities in_ that connection.


George Harris Hees: In view of the delegations that are appearing every day in parliament on this important matter I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Will the government give consideration to calling immediately a dominion-provincial conference to work out the division of costs between the federal, provincial and municipal governments for providing for unemployed employables who have no entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits?

Inquiries oj the Ministry


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, this matter of unemployment-which is one that is, I am sure, seriously regretted by all hon. members -is receiving constant consideration.



FURTHER LAY-OFF OF EMPLOYEES AT A. V. ROE PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworlhy (York South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the fact that notwithstanding the assurance given by himself to a trade union delegation some days ago-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Joseph William Noseworthy: -lay-offs are still taking place at the A. V. Roe plant and that approximately 200 lay-offs have taken place since he gave his assurance to the delegation?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the inference in the question is that the union delegation referred to was told that there would be no more lay-offs after their visit. I remember distinctly that my colleague, the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) and I participated in that discussion. The delegation was told the exact amount of the cut-back in defence orders which had then been made, but at no time could we state or did we state that this would not result in further lay-offs by the company.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the Canadian National Railways planning to discontinue the workmen's trains that run between Winnipeg and Transcona? If so, will the minister urge the C.N.R. to reconsider the matter and give the employees concerned the assurance that this essential service will be continued?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I received the hon. member's question only just before coming into the house but I am able to give an answer because yesterday the hon. member for St. Boniface spoke to my office regarding the reported discontinuance of the workmen's train and I had therefore made inquiries of the Canadian National Railways. The management inform me that the question of the operation of this train is under consideration but that no decision has yet been made.


I am able to add that the matter of substitute transportation in the event that the train is discontinued is also under study by the management.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister aware that a pamphlet entitled "Crime in your Community" has been published by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and distributed throughout Canada? Is the minister aware of the fact that the 50,000 copies printed and distributed were all in English? Will the minister tell the house why no French copies were available for distribution in this bilingual country of ours?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I wish to thank the hon. member for Quebec West for having given me notice of his question. The pamphlet in question was produced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to inform citizens as to how they might better guard their property against criminals. The pamphlet has been given general distribution only in those parts of Canada in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, acting under contract as either the provincial or municipal police force, have the responsibility for the enforcement of the general body of the criminal law. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police do not have that responsibility either in the province of Ontario or Quebec which have their own provincial police forces, or in those municipalities in which the primary responsibility for policing and law enforcement is that of the municipal police force. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police therefore have not made a general distribution of the pamphlet either in the provinces of Ontario or Quebec or in these municipalities to which I have referred. Copies of the pamphlet, however, have been sent as a matter of information to the Ontario, Quebec and these municipal police forces and to the press.
In the eight provinces of Canada and in the municipalities in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are the only police force, large quantities of this pamphlet have been sent to every Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment with instructions to get the pamphlet into the hands of those who could make good use of the suggestions contained in them. A French version of the pamphlet has been in preparation and will be available next week. Meanwhile it has

been possible to provide copies of the French version in typescript form pending the printing of the same.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Does the minister know that in New Brunswick over 200,000 people are of French descent-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -and cannot speak any other language but French?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I heard my hon. friend correctly in the midst of the comments-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Interruptions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -I do know that there are the number which he has stated in the province of New Brunswick. It was with a view to providing for them, notwithstanding the fact that this pamphlet would not have general distribution in Quebec, that the French version is being prepared.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Did the minister give instructions to the R.C.M.P.-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -to distribute French copies to these French people in New Brunswick after they had protested about not having them?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would be very glad to answer my hon. friend's last question. It was not after they had protested. We would not be able to have the French version now if we had not put it in the course of preparation some time ago because, as the hon. member knows, these pamphlets do not appear overnight like mushrooms. We have provided for them in the usual way. In the present instance we prepared the pamphlet in the English language first. Then we had to translate it and get it printed in the French language, and that takes a little time.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Can the minister tell me how long ago the English copies were distributed?


An hon. Member:: Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You are too lazy to get up and say anything.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The distribution of a pamphlet of this sort by the mounted police is not a detail of the department's administration that is ordinarily called to the attention of the minister, and therefore I am afraid I cannot tell my hon. friend.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Over a month ago. [DOT]
50433-96i
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



DETENTION OF DEPORTEES IN TORONTO JAIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph William Noseworthy: I want
to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister aware of the fact that immigrants ordered to be deported are held in Toronto jail for more than a month at a cost of $10 a day to Canadian taxpayers even though they offer to pay their own way back to their country of origin and to leave as soon as they are notified of deportation action? If so, will the minister explain to the house why such action is taken?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I appreciate the fact that the hon. member's notice was sent to my office, but it did not reach me until I was leaving the office to come to the house. I am not aware of the fact, if indeed it is a fact, but I have given instructions to have the question looked into immediately.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Minister of Agriculture if he is now ready or will soon be ready to table a return to a motion for production of papers in my name passed by the house on January 24? If the Minister of Agriculture is not in charge of that particular one, perhaps the Secretary of State might look it up.


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: shall look into the matter and see that the return is tabled as early as possible.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I am sorry I have not given him notice but I am sure he will not need any notice. It has been reported by the press that the report of the royal commission inquiring into railway agreed charges has now been submitted to the government. Can the minister tell us when he proposes to table that report?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Notwithstanding my hon. friend's complimentary reference, I am afraid I will have to take his question as notice and bring down the answer at the next sitting of the house.
1504	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES



AVOIDANCE OF LONG HOURS OF DUTY FOR PILOTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question arises out of the report on the T.C.A. accident near Brampton on December 17, 1954. In view of the fact that T.C.A. in many instances operates under regulations more strict than those required by the air regulations under the Aeronautics Act, will consideration be given to avoiding pilots having to be on duty on domestic lines for as long as 16 hours a day?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There is no foundation for the suggestion that pilots on domestic services are on duty for 16 hours. It is not the case. The official report is the report of those duly appointed to carry out the duty of investigating the accident. The commission included three very competent experts, and also a medical board. The report of both these boards was included in the report to the minister. There is no suggestion that I can find in the report that the T.C.A. officers were on duty 16 hours a day, and my knowledge of the situation indicates that is not the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? I realize I cannot argue with the minister's statement, but the report on which my question was based is a matter of record. Is he making it clear, however, that as a general practice there are no terms of duty of 16 hours a day on T.C.A.?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The rules are well established. I suppose if a flight to England were delayed by headwinds there might be a term of duty as long as 16 hours, but certainly there would be one or two days lay-off following it. The rules of T.C.A. are well established. They are made by agreement with the pilots' association, and I do not think my hon. friend could suggest any changes that would improve the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon on the orders of the day I asked a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce which I indicated was based on a report of the Trans-Canada Air Lines accident at Brampton on December 17, 1954. Arising out of that report, I asked a question about a term of duty as long as 16 hours a day. The Minister of Trade and Commerce replied to the effect that there was no foundation for the suggestion that pilots are on duty for 16 hours. He


went on and referred to the three-man report to which I had referred, stating there was no suggestion he could find in the report that officers were on duty for 16 hours a day.
On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to place on the record just one paragraph from the report to which I referred, which will make it clear-


Mr. Harris:: This is not privilege, this is argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was said by the minister that there was no foundation in the report for my question. All I wish to do, Mr. Speaker, is place on the record one paragraph from the report.


Mr. Speaker:: I can see that there are some doubts as to the propriety of putting this quotation on the record at this time. It is true that the minister concerned is not here at the moment, but I take it the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is indicating that he wants to justify the question he put, that is the veracity of his assertion-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Correct.


Mr. Speaker:: I am at a loss to find anything which is derogatory so far as our rules are concerned.


Walter Edward Harris: On the point of order, or privilege, I have never understood that an hon. member could, on a point of privilege, insert into the record something which would justify a statement he may have made. Privilege is reserved for the explanation of what he himself may have said at one time or another, or what he did not say. But it is not a process of the house in which, a member having said one thing, and someone else having denied it, he will attempt to justify it, unless it is within the peculiar knowledge and with respect to the person of the member himself.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member asked a question which he says was based upon a report. He could not, in a question on the orders of the day, quote from the report. The minister who answered the question said there was no foundation in the report to justify the allegation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Now, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can further justify that there were good grounds for having put the question in the way he did, then he clears the position up, so far as he is concerned. Otherwise what is the implication? The implication is that the hon. member was not telling the truth.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: I think so.


Walter Edward Harris: Surely not.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, if that is not so, I must say that I do not wish in this case to give any special privilege to anyone. I am just trying to be fair to the hon. member. But apparently the attitude he is now taking does not appeal to many hon. members in the house.
It may be that he could find another opportunity to make good his claim that the question he asked, based upon a report, was exactly as he construed it. Of course the only ground I can find for refusing permission to the hon. member to proceed at this time is that he wants to give further explanation of a question he has put; and we must keep in mind that when questions are asked on the orders of the day they are open to that kind of risk. Because an hon. member, when asking his question, can give no more information than is absolutely necessary for such purpose.
The hon. member has done that and he has had an answer. What remains I think must become a debatable point between the hon. member and the Minister of Trade and Commerce on a later occasion. The hon. member may have to offer it as a grievance on a motion to go into supply, or he may speak when the estimates of the Department of Transport are being considered, and when there is discussion of salaries of Trans-Canada Air Lines employees, at which time the working conditions can be discussed generally. At that time the hon. member may make a point of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would point out with
respect, Mr. Speaker, that earlier in your remarks you indicated what was my point of privilege, namely that my veracity had been called into question in respect of a statement I had made earlier.


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not wish to argue the question. I wish merely to put on the record the statement contained in the report on the basis of which I founded my question. I would not be asking to do this had it not been that the minister said there was no foundation for it.


Walter Edward Harris: He did not say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not a matter of requiring unanimous consent; it is a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Other hon. members object to the course the hon. member wishes to follow. The hon. member had the report before him, and the point could have been taken up immediately following the question which was put. If he had spoken at that time on a question of privilege, to clarify his
Canada Elections Act
position, I am sure he would have had permission from the house. But several hours have elapsed since that time. I think the hon. member's position will not be prejudiced if he waits until a little later to do what he wants to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am prepared to let it go with just a word. I think Your Honour will understand that it was difficult at that time for me to thumb through all the pages of this report to find a certain paragraph, even though I knew it was there. But it is there, at page 15-the reference to 16 hours on duty in one day.


Mr. Byrne:: It is unfair that this implication should be left. I was in the house when the minister answered the question, and he said that, if a pilot did work such hours on any one flight, he had from two to three days off, and the inference was that they were not overfatigued because of the flight on that particular day. He told us that there was no foundation for saying that the pilot was overfatigued. He did not suggest there was no foundation for the statement that he worked 16 hours a day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He most certainly did.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, this may be a good indication that many questions asked on the orders of the day in the form in which they are asked should not be asked.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The old rooting section goes to work.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Speaker:: Do I take it that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) wishes to proceed now with his notice of motion?


Roch Pinard: Yes, I do.


Mr. Speaker:: It is understood, therefore, that later on, after we have disposed of this item and when I call orders of the day again, the question and answer period that has now taken place by unanimous consent will not occur again.


Roch Pinard: That the standing committee on privileges and elections be instructed to study the several amendments to the Canada Elections Act, and amendments thereto, suggested by the chief electoral officer, to study the said act, to suggest to the house such amendments as the committee may deem advisable; that the said committee have


Walter Edward Harris: I so move.
Amendment (Mr. Harris) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the debate will proceed on the main motion as amended.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the opportunity to make an examination of the Canada Elections Act. We believe it is worth while doing so at this stage, when perhaps an election is not just around the corner. Naturally at this moment we are a bit in the dark as to the nature of the amendments that will be placed before the committee; but, coming as they will in large measure from the chief electoral officer, in whom we have confidence, we would expect that as a result of those amendments considerable improvement would be made in the elections act.
I have in mind a number of matters connected with the act, and naturally we will see whether the amendments proposed by the chief electoral officer cover those items. I am somewhat surprised however that at this particular stage, when introducing the motion, the minister has come along with an amendment extending greatly the investigations to be carried out by the committee. I am not sure that this implies on his part anything in the nature of careful preparation, when he places a motion on the order paper and then, on the occasion when it is brought to the attention of the house, offers an amendment. Particularly is this so when the amendment deals with the very broad question of redistribution which, naturally, would involve
Canada Elections Act
more extensive work on the part of the committee than is implied by the motion now before us.
However I think hon. members will welcome an opportunity to discuss the problem of redistribution in perhaps a quieter atmosphere than prevailed when we were on the subject not so long ago.
I would say in conclusion-because until we see the measure we cannot debate it at length-that the general working out of the elections act under the supervision of the chief electoral officer has met with approval. As I said, we have confidence in him. We like the idea of having him as an appointee of parliament in general, and we recognize the fact that he is not under any obligation to any one party in the house. This sets above party consideratiofts the actual operation of the elections act and the carrying out of the duties of the chief electoral officer. We will await with interest the actual details of the measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the decision of the government to have the elections act referred to the committee. I believe that for some years it has been the practice to set up a special committee, whereas now the proposal is to have the matter referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections. Nothing seems to turn on that, and perhaps this is a good time to make use of a standing committee which has not met too often in the last few years.
As the Secretary of State is aware, there are likely to be a number of other suggestions made which the committee might consider. Some of them may come from members speaking to this resolution today, and others will be made by members serving on the standing committee.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that the election machinery of this country is in good hands, in the person of the chief electoral officer, Mr. Nelson Castonguay. We all have great confidence in this appointee of the House of Commons, and we know that any suggestions he brings to the committee involving changes in the elections act will be changes that he feels, out of his experience in the last election, should be made. I hope the same consideration for proposed changes will be accorded to the suggestions made by members as I know members will accord to the suggestions to be made by Mr. Castonguay.
Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to speak at length. Indeed, if I may say so, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) has cut considerably shorter than otherwise would have been

Canada Elections Act
the case the remarks I had intended to make, by the amendment to the motion he has had one of his colleagues move.
We are glad to note the decision of the government that it will be appropriate for the committee to discuss various means of adjusting the representation in the boundaries of constituencies represented in the House of Commons. In the action he has taken today, he has corrected a fault of the last session. The Secretary of State has referred to the fact that the motion of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), as amended, passed at the last session. But for some of us it was a matter of annoyance that, though the amended motion passed, nothing was done about it throughout the remainder of the session. The committee named in the amendment simply did not meet. [DOT]
Most of us recall the excellent speech the esteemed member for Quebec South made on the question of redistribution on December 7, 1953. At the end of that speech he said, as reported at page 669 of Hansard for that date:
I have heard it said that parliament is capable of great things, of carrying on its business with dignity, decorum, fairness and impartiality, but that when it comes to decisions with respect to redistribution it falls far short of that which the people of Canada expect from it. It seems to me we can now make a study of this matter coolly, calmly and with great deliberation, and thus do some good to ourselves and to the people of Canada. I commend such a study to this house.
I am sorry it has taken this long for a committee of the house to get authority to carry out that study. However I am glad it is going to be made, and I hope it will be carried on in the vein suggested by the hon. member for Quebec South, when he made this proposal at the last session of parliament. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out once again, as I did on January 19, 1955, by means of a question on the orders of the day to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard), that in my own province of Manitoba a decision has just about been concluded to provide for redistribution in Manitoba, so far as provincial electoral boundaries are concerned, by an independent commission. A very important committee has been working on this matter for a number of months. It has made a report to the Manitoba provincial legislature recommending quite a number of electoral changes. One of the proposed changes is that the electoral boundaries in the province of Manitoba be drawn up henceforth by an independent commission. I hope that the lead which is thus being given by the province of Manitoba will soon be followed by this parliament, and I hope that serious study will be given by this committee to the proposals laid before the legislature of Manitoba in the report to which I have referred.

I would not want the Secretary of State or the committee to get the impression that I agree with everything that is in the report that has been presented to the Manitoba legislature. For example, I think the ratio that it establishes as between urban and rural seats on a 7 to 4 basis is much wider than it should be, and it is much wider than was proposed by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) when he dealt with this matter some time ago, but that issue is not before us. I just wanted to indicate that in commending to this committee a study of the report made in Manitoba I was not commending everything in it, but was commending in particular the proposal that redistribution be done by an independent commission.
I think we have all listened with great attention to the pleas that have been made to us from time to time in this matter by the hon. member for Quebec South, and I think we shall be doing a good day's work for democracy and for Canada when we make a real improvement in the matter of redistribution, when we take it out of political control and provide for it to be brought about on the basis of an independent commission. I hope that this matter will receive the study it deserves; I hope the comi mittee will have an entirely free hand to give full consideration to all the suggestions that will be made in that committee by various members, to the end that we might still further improve our election machinery in this country.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I agree with the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) when he says that this is hardly the place to make suggestions to the committee if we wish the committee to have an entirely objective approach to the study of all phases of the elections act and the question of redistribution. We should give that committee a free hand. I hope that in the discussion that takes place in the committee all proposals made by hon. members from all sides of the house will be given equal consideration, as I think they will be. We are glad to see redistribution added to the original resolution, and we shall support the resolution as it has been amended.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to take part in the debate on this motion because it involves a matter in which I am very much interested, and I am sure there are many hon. members on all sides of the house who are equally interested. Since the opening of the session I have had a motion on the order paper requesting the government to give consideration at this time to amending the Canada Elections Act to extend the federal franchise to all Indians over 21

years of age who are ordinarily resident upon reserves. At the present time, by reason of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act, the details of which I will not go into now, only certain Indians resident on reserves have the right to vote in federal elections.
Some hon. members may have noticed that I have withdrawn my motion from the order paper. I withdrew it when I read on the order paper the motion of the minister to refer certain amendments to the Canada Elections Act to the committee on privileges and elections; but I do not wish to drop the subject, because I am very much interested in seeing given to the Indian people as a whole the right to vote in federal elections. I desire this for many reasons, some of which-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I realize that perhaps I should have intervened earlier when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was expounding his views on one of the methods by which he would like to see redistribution carried out. Now, the hon. member would like to have the Indians considered generally for voting purposes. I can see that other hon. members may want to propose that the age be lowered to 18, and then we may go into the various boundaries of constituencies. We could go to no end with respect to the suggestions which should not be made at this time but before the committee, the purpose of which is precisely to hear those suggestions. Therefore, if the hon. member would be good enough to be patient until the committee is set up, he could make his suggestions to that committee. Later, when the report is made, or when amendments to the elections act are proposed, he could bring up his suggestions then, if he has not had sufficient attention given to his proposals. At this time I must insist on having the rules of relevancy strictly adhered to.


Mr. Lennard:: Mr Speaker, I rise merely to say that I am glad you have made that ruling because as I sat here I wondered just how much farther this thing was going to go.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very glad to have relieved the uncertainty of the hon. member for Wentworth.
National Harbours Board Act place or misinterpretations of the act, that we can perfect the machinery.
The particular clause that I want to refer to as proof of what I have to say is section 54 of the act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Castleden:: It is a sentence of about 170 words, which lends itself, and has lent itself, to misinterpretation. It is little wonder that such a muddled mass of verbiage should befog the most learned, and particularly the last clause. The particular case to which I refer occurred in 1953. It has to do with the application to a judge for a recount-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I know it is very tempting to announce now all the suggestions that one would like to put forward, but all this resolution asks is the setting up of a committee. I understand the hon. member agrees with the institution of a committee. The committee is set up to study not only the amendments suggested by the chief electoral officer, but amendments, no matter from where they may come, that may be submitted to it covering the entire Canada Elections Act, and also the problem of redistribution and the various methods of dealing with it.
Hon. members know that if I allow one hon. member to express his suggestions today on this resolution I shall have to allow others to do the same thing. I am sure that every hon. member would have a suggestion to offer with respect to the elections act.


George Hugh Castleden: I am not questioning your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Motion as amended agreed to.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD ACT


George Carlyle Marler: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Xtlai li expedient to introduce a measure to fh"tn?i.the Natl0nal Harbours Board Act to provide that the national harbours board shall consist of four members m lieu of three members as at the


George Hugh Castleden: What I have to say is quite short and relates only to one matter. What the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) has said is quite true; it is very important in the maintenance of democracy and justice that the elections act be constantly reviewed. It is only by constant revision, in the light of experience, mistakes and perhaps injustices which may have taken
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Mr. Green:: Is the minister making a statement?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, as the text of the resolution indicates, the purpose of the bill is to increase the number of members of the national harbours board from three to four. The substantial growth in traffic and
1510	HOUSE OF
National Harbours Board Act earnings of the national harbours board since it was constituted in 1936 has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in its responsibilities. Total cargo tonnage has risen by 73 per cent and the total revenues are three times greater than in 1935. The number of vessels entering national ports is also much higher.
With the increase in use of our national harbours greater responsibilities rest upon the board to determine the adequacy of facilities, to plan for future development and in general administration. I am sure that hon. members will agree that the operation of such a body as the national harbours board can be efficient and satisfactory only to the degree that the board is fully cognizant of actual conditions and local problems in each of the ports under its jurisdiction.
It is the view of the government that the proposed increase in membership will not only enable the board to keep pace with the growth of its responsibilities but will also permit more frequent visits to the ports to be made by individual members and by the board itself. In this way we believe that more numerous and better opportunities will be afforded for closer contact with the communities served by the national harbours.
I may conclude by saying that there are eight harbours under the jurisdiction of the board: Montreal, Vancouver, Churchill, Three Rivers, Quebec, Chicoutimi, Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick. The board also is responsible for the operation of grain elevators at Port Colborne and Prescott.
I should like to add that I feel that enlargement of the board will enable it to render even more effective service in the communities served by the harbours under its jurisdiction.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, in his statement the minister has not given any indication of the type of appointment he proposes to make to the national harbours board. I should like to point out to him that at the present time the chairman of the board is a native of Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: I agree with the hon. member who has applauded that the chairman is an excellent civil servant and over the years has done fine work for the board. I believe the vice-chairman is Brigadier Archer of Quebec city. There is no representative from the west coast and I submit that the time has come when one member of this board should be from the west coast. I believe that the port of Vancouver has far more ships plying in and out of the harbour than any other

COMMONS	.
national harbour. We are much further removed from Ottawa than any of the other harbours and it is of the utmost importance that there should be someone from the west coast on this board.
About a month ago a dispatch appeared in one of the Vancouver papers to the effect that there would be two new appointments, one from the west coast and the other an expert in the grain trade, the latter appointment being considered necessary because of the importance of the handling of grain in most of these ports. I am not in a position to say whether it is essential that there should be an expert on grain problems on the board, but certainly there should be a west coast man as member of the national harbours board.
The second suggestion I wish to place before the minister has to do with the point he himself stressed, namely, the contact of the board with local problems. The minister stated that the business through these ports had increased greatly in recent years, which of course is true. They have been filling a larger and larger place in the life of the nation. He also said that if one more man was added to the board it would help the board to become better acquainted with local problems. That may help to a degree but the thing that would really help the national harbours board to come to grips with local problems would be to have a local advisory committee in each port.
During each session for many years I have asked that such committees be set up but I have not been able to make much headway for some reason or other. The desire seems to be to hold all the strings right here in Ottawa; there must be complete control here in Ottawa. I hope I can take it from the minister's opening remarks today that that policy is not to be continued and that an attempt is to be made to keep the board in much closer touch with the local problems in the ports than it has been to date.
I would refer the minister to the well-known report by Sir Alexander Gibb on the national harbours of Canada made in 1932 and entitled "National Ports Survey". It was on the basis of this report that the national harbours board was set up in the first place, but the government did not follow his recommendation with regard to this extremely important point of maintaining some contact with local conditions in the ports. I refer the minister to page 30 of Sir Alexander Gibb's report under the heading of "Proposed Form of Control and Administration. Local Control". The first paragraph deals with the proposal that port managers be appointed, and of course that suggestion

was implemented in the legislation which followed. But with regard to local conditions Sir Alexander had this to say:
83.	Considerable latitude should be allowed to the port managers so long as their activities are directed to carrying out the policy laid down by the central authority. It is essential to avoid emasculating the local administration, since no centralized control can replace an efficient and active local administration, or the special knowledge and initiative of the local business community, both of which are vital to a port's prosperity.
84.	For this latter reason I strongly advocate a local advisory council. There are very many aspects of port working which such a council can properly care for, such as the representation of the interests of private wharf owners, of local merchants and distributors, of local consignees and exporters, of the labour view and of the attitude of boards of trade, chambers of commerce, corn exchanges and other such trade organizations, in addition to shipping.
Within recent months in Vancouver we have had a very good example of the part that could be played by a local committee. The fight to get the price of wheat at Vancouver back on a comparative basis with the price at Fort William and Port Arthur was led by two of the local unions. They were worried about the loss of employment. They went to great trouble to work out a brief and to make submissions urging that a change be made in government policy. They were able to rally behind them all of the business interests having to do with the ports. That was an example of a problem which affected Vancouver and which could be adequately emphasized only by some local body in that city. Sir Alexander Gibb went on to say this:
It serves very usefully to identify the community with the port;-
Being a member from the island of Montreal, the minister knows just how important that is. Sir Alexander Gibb continues:
-and to secure the support and interest of local members of parliament, the city council, or provincial government in schemes, and so anticipate and meet criticisms from any such quarters or action that might be prejudicial to the port. '
It is invaluable in exploring the possibilities of local markets, in carrying out advertisement and propaganda and in co-operation with interests likely to promote industrial developments. Finally a local council provides a useful check on the tendency of more or less permanent officials to become stereotyped or arbitrary.
That is, of course, one of the weaknesses in the present system. Today we have a national harbours board and a local manager in each port. He deals directly with the national harbours board. He does not need to worry much about what the business interests, labour interests, the city council or the other people in a port think about the developments in that port. He has only to deal with Ottawa. That set-up, I submit to
National Harbours Board Act the minister, is not the best possible one. Sir Alexander went on to say:
85.	The port manager would be ex-officio chairman of the council, which would meet regularly and be consulted on all such matters as proposed developments, alterations in rates, important changes in operation. The members of the council should have the right of initiating discussions on matters of policy affecting the port, on any complaints raised by users of the port, and on questions of rates, charges, etc.; but not on any purely executive matters, and they would have no executive duties or powers.
The advisory council's proceedings and recommendations would be submitted to the central authority, and they should have the right of direct access to the central authority, but not to any other department of government.
In the Montreal papers I have been reading about the concern felt in that great city about the changes that will be required because of the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway. Some interests in Montreal at least seem to be much worried about whether their port facilities are going to be brought up to date in time to take full advantage of the opening of the seaway. They are worried lest, if these facilities are not brought up to date, some other port may get the business. The minister has there at his own front door a good example of the benefits that could follow from the setting up of a local advisory council.
It is true that in two of the ports there are informal committees, or there were last year. I think one was in Halifax and the other in Quebec city. I am not sure of that but the former minister of transport, in answer to a question, told me that there were two informal committees. Instead of just providing for an additional member of the national harbours board, I hope the minister will take one step further and provide for these local advisory councils. For many years the Vancouver Sun has pleaded for action of this kind. As a matter of fact, I have here an extract from an editorial they wrote in 1932 at the time the Gibb report was first published. In it they had this to say:
Vancouver wants and needs and must have not less control but more control of her own affairs. Vancouver's port is the west's and Vancouver's way out to the world. Its control must stay in Vancouver.
By establishment of the national harbours board Vancouver lost control over the harbour. Now, more pier and wharf facilities are needed! machinery at docks needs replacing, the government system needs much overhaul to modernize it, investigation should be made into the N H B's efficiency here.
In reprinting this editorial the Sun had this to say:
Occasional visits to Vancouver_
The minister has emphasized today that there perhaps could be more visits if he had more men. I am saying that visits are not
1512	HOUSE OF
National Harbours Board Act enough. We want somebody out there who has the authority to sit in, to know what is being done and to make suggestions for improvement. The editorial continues:
-by the three-man N.H.B. aren't likely to produce these things. They haven't done much since 1933.
A competent local advisory council with the interests of the port at heart could get action. And if it spent time looking into the port's activities it might find plenty to get action about.
Those are my two suggestions for the minister today. Before he brings this bill to the house for second reading I hope he will give consideration to the second suggestion, the implementation of which I think will require a further amendment to the National Harbours Boards Act. I refer, of course, to the provision for local advisory councils. As to our port of Vancouver, may I say-and the same is true of Montreal, although perhaps not to the same extent, and it is certainly true of Halifax and Saint John-that our ports are vital to the development of the cities and the areas around the cities. These ports need the most progressive type of leadership. I believe that leadership can be achieved only if the local people are given a part in the direction of port activities.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief word to say. I remember the time when the minister of transport set up this harbours board. He was then soundly criticized from most places in Canada or at least from the places which had a harbour. Prior to that time there was a harbour board at each seaport. Those harbour boards were certainly criticized because of political action. The then minister of transport stuck to his guns and had this board appointed. The hon. member who has just spoken agrees that they have done an outstanding job. Another man is necessary. At Fort William we have an official who is responsible for keeping his eye on everything that goes on in the harbour. I think we want to be very careful about anything that will look like the old harbour board. I support the resolution to provide an extra man for the board.


Mr. Bryce:: I want to say a couple of words on this matter. I am delighted that the minister has brought in the resolution. I did not know before that all the members of the board were from the maritimes. I do not think that is a good situation. I think there should be representation from the east and west coasts. My main object in rising at this time is to remind the minister that we have a port at Churchill and that no mean business is done there now. It is growing every year. What we need on the board is somebody well versed in the grain traffic,


someone who has a prairie background and knows the grain business. I ask the minister to take that into consideration and see if somebody from the prairies cannot be appointed to represent us on the harbours board. Business at Churchill is certain to increase. It has been increasing every year and it is going to continue to increase. I should like the minister to give consideration to that point when he selects the new member of the board.


Mr. Hahn:: I was pleased to hear the
remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, who is a member of the standing committee. I would certainly go along with the reasons given, so far as Vancouver is concerned, as to why there should be an additional man on the national harbours board. I am also hopeful that if the minister is approached in the not too distant future with a request for an additional member of a harbour board at New Westminster, he will treat it with the same thought in mind and will have the same argument to put forward indicating that they are in need of another member also.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, coming from a
port that is largely dependent on the successful administration of the national harbours board, I simply wish to indicate my interest in this change. I appreciate the complaint of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra about the number of maritimers on the board, but I fail to see much difference because if some prominent person from the west were appointed a member of the board he would probably be a maritimer anyway. We have new plans at Saint John for port promotion, and if this increase in the membership of the board means a greater interest in our port, more frequent visits of the board, and generally a better long-range program for the port, then I personally would be in favour of the change.


Mr. Balcom:: If I may take a moment, I
should like to pay tribute at this time to the great work done by the three members of the board, Mr. Smith, Mr. Archer and Mr. Roberts. The operations of the board have been very efficient over the years, as evidenced by the high state of efficiency that the port of Halifax finds itself in today. Not only has the board been efficient but those actually in charge of local management at Halifax have been doing grand work. We also appointed a local port of Halifax commission, the cost of which is paid by the people of Halifax. They have been accepted by the board more or less as an advisory committee. and in the last year or so their advice has been taken by the minister and the board.

We think it is of first importance that there should be a local advisory committee made up of members who are familiar with the workings of the port and its needs. We find it is paying dividends to have that committee working.
There is only one other point I want to raise. It is proposed to increase the membership of the board from three to four. I know the amount of work and travelling the members have to do. Certainly a membership of four is not too large, and possibly it could be made five. In the past the maritimes have had a member on the board, and at present it is the chairman, Mr. Smith. Halifax is an important port. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has indicated that. A Nova Scotian should be appointed to replace the member now retiring. I believe that one of the two remaining members is from Quebec and one from Ontario.


Mr. Lesage:: Newfoundland.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I cannot remember when he was ever in Newfoundland. I hope you would not accept him as coming from Newfoundland. He may have come from there originally but it is a long time ago and he is now a resident of central Canada. Therefore I hope what I have suggested will be given consideration.


Mr. Stick:: I have very little to say, but the matter of a national harbour for Newfoundland has been on the carpet for a good many years, and under the terms of union I think it was more or less promised. I should like to know from the minister at this time what information he has in that regard and if he has any information as to what progress has been made with respect to a national harbour for Newfoundland. The junior member for Halifax has paid tribute to the seamanship of those who have come from Newfoundland, and I am very glad that they can come to the mainland and hold their own with anybody else to the extent that they can be appointed to the national harbours board. We have seamen down there second to none. I am glad that when they come to this part of the country and settle they can play their part.


Mr. Brooks:: How about a minister?


Leonard T. Stick: You had better take that up with the Prime Minister. The matter of a national harbour for Newfoundland is a serious one. I suggest to the new minister- and we wish him every luck-that he give the matter serious consideration in the near future.


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to try to reply briefly to some of the comments that have
National Harbours Board Act been made during the discussion of the resolution. I think hon. members will realize from what has been said how difficult it would be to satisfy all of the views that have been expressed today. There are those who believe that the maritimes should have representation, that Quebec should have representation, that the middle west should have representation and, in turn, that Vancouver should have representation. I find that it is not long before the number of available appointments runs out without everybody having been satisfied.
I think, however, that when one reflects for a moment one realizes two things concerning these appointments. The first is that while a commissioner may originate from a particular part of Canada such as the maritimes or the west coast, when he moves to Ottawa, as necessarily he must as a member of the national harbours board, he does after a time lose the rather close association with the place from which he came that existed at the time of his appointment. I do not think that members should be under illusions as to what I might describe as territorial representation. I think that territorial representation is in fact and in practice of rather brief duration. I believe that so far as possible we should look for the people who are best able to render the type of service that we expect from the members of the board, and that in making our choice we should try to find the talent and also give representation to various parts of Canada. I may assure hon. members that when the making of these appointments is considered we shall endeavour to compress the incompressible and to satisfy all the territorial recommendations that have been made, bearing in mind that our prime purpose is to have a board that is staffed with capable members who will be able to discharge fully the duties they are called upon to discharge under the statute.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, I think, spoke of the Gibb report and the question of local advisory committees. I may say I was not unfamiliar with the recommendation, and I understand that the matter has been considered previously by this house. I understand, too, that, in a general sense, it has been the opinion of the government that local advisory committees may function well in certain circumstances, and in others less well. My own inclination, Mr. Chairman, is to believe that with an active membership on the board itself the advantages of local advisory committees can be attained through this greater activity on the part of the members of the board without running into some of the disadvantages.
1514	HOUSE OF
National Harbours Board Act
I agree with my hon. friend when he speaks of stereotyped or arbitrary management. I sincerely hope that the management, with the appointments we shall come to make if and when this legislation is adopted, will avoid anything that savours of that. I hope I made it quite clear when I first spoke to this resolution that I am most anxious not only that members of the board shall have numerous contacts with local authorities and local organizations, but that these should be as frequent and as friendly as possible.
The hon. member spoke also of the concern which exists in Montreal concerning the development of the harbour there in order to meet the changed conditions that will be brought about by the- seaway. I should like to say that I do not believe all this concern, which has been expressed by only a limited number of people in Montreal, is justified by the facts. I do not want to go into a long explanation concerning the seaway, but the question as to which side of the river the seaway was to be located upon was a very vital factor in the consideration by the national harbours board of the changes that would be made in the port of Montreal. The decision as to the location of the seaway was arrived at only recently, for reasons which I think it is unnecessary to go into now. I am advised, and I believe the advice I have given is sound, that we have adequate time to carry out the works that must be done, and the harbours board is fully conscious of the importance of carrying out those works.
A statement has been made recently that at the moment there is no accommodation in Montreal for long lake carriers, for the obvious reason they have been unable to get to Montreal and will not be able to get there until the navigation season of 1959. Then new facilities to accommodate them will be ready when the lakers are able to go to Montreal.
The hon. member referred also to the improvements in other ports. I believe that is covered by what I have already said, that I expect the board, by frequent visits and much local contact, to be fully acquainted with the changes that have become necessary in the various harbours under the board's control. Perhaps when the estimates of the harbours board are under consideration we may be able to go into that matter more fully, which perhaps is not of immediate concern.
The hon. member for Selkirk referred to the need for someone who knows the grain business. I might say that that suggestion has already been made to me. I feel it is a suggestion which has great merit. Perhaps the fact that the suggestion has been made indicates that not only are there these geographic


considerations which must be taken into account, but we must also try to find the capabilities suited to the administrative duties which the board must discharge.
Well then, Mr. Chairman, to conclude I think that the enlargement of the board will enable us to give representation to other parts of Canada that are not now represented, and also to have a broader range of capabilities than if the board were limited to three. I reiterate what I said earlier, and I say this in no sense of reflection on the activities of the board up to the present, I am most hopeful that with a larger board there will be greater activity on the part of the board in visiting local ports and establishing even better contacts with local communities and the organizations in them.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the minister has not taken my suggestion of a local advisory council very seriously. I urge him once again to have another look at this problem. The hon. member for New Westminster pointed out that New Westminster has a harbour commission, which of course does not come under the national harbours board. Many of the ports in Canada have their own commission and are not under this national harbours board.
Now, the commission at New Westminster is composed of local people and they are constantly worrying about ways of improving their port. They are getting a lot of business simply because the board members are out there worrying about that port, and taking steps to see that its facilities are improved. We have a resolution on the order paper right now to introduce a bill to help out this New Westminster harbour commission. They deserve the utmost credit for the way in which they have administered their port.
Just over the Burrard peninsula you have the much greater port of Vancouver, and there you have simply a port manager on salary from Ottawa. We will now have four harbour commissioners living in Ottawa, whose job it will be to visit the various ports from one coast to the other, and that is not going to give very much local control. It may help conditions a bit but what is required is some kind of advisory council in the ports themselves. No one is suggesting it should be a paid council; no one is suggesting that it should be given executive authority. The idea is, as Sir Alexander Gibb reported, to have a group of local men who are vitally interested in keeping their port up to date, men who have a stake in the port either by way of being businessmen, labour men, or members of the city council or otherwise. These are the people who are really worried about getting the port developed.

National Harbours Board Act
No paid employee can be expected to have the broad approach to the problems of that port that would be given by having such an advisory council. 1 repeat my suggestion to the minister that he have another look at this suggestion. The member for Halifax has indicated how helpful a committee has been there. We have that evidence of what is actually happening in Halifax today, and that is the sort of committee there should be in every one of these great ports. I hope the minister will reconsider this suggestion.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, in rising to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and to point out its particular applicability to the port of Montreal, I think it might be well to go back for a moment or two to look into the debates which took place when the national harbours board was set up originally. At page 1412 of Hansard for 1936 the hon. member for Port Arthur-and I am referring to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce-said this:
It is not the intention to operate strictly as a board. The thought is more that each phase of harbour engineering will be referred to the member of the board expert in the matter, and that an individual will really be administering a certain phase of harbour work.
Having said that, it would seem that this board, as such, would have comparatively little interest in the specific phase of the development of particular local harbours, such as those at Montreal and at Vancouver. Certainly according to the intimation given the house when the board was set up, their interests were those of experts in harbour administration, generally. That thought is implicit throughout the debate which took place in the initial stages of the setting up of this organization.
A great harbour such as that at Vancouver, or the one in Montreal, cannot be administered and developed by a board which has contact only very occasionally with that area. This was recognized in the appointment of port managers. But here, again, the port manager is a man who is interested primarily in the mechanical operation of his harbour. Here, again, he reports to the central authority at Ottawa.
It would seem to me that when we look at the port of Montreal and the particular problems facing it, some of which the minister has mentioned and others of which he has not mentioned, we must view the matter in a somewhat different light. For example, he has not mentioned the fact that we are completely without adequate or even reasonable
fire protection in that port in the form of a fireboat permanently assigned. When we realize that the passenger handling facilities in the port are, shall we say, perhaps somewhat on a par with the passenger handling facilities of the airports of Canada-and I have not too high an opinion of those-and when we consider that earlier this year at least one shipping company intimated that it preferred 1 handle passengers through the port of Quebec and was considering cutting down the number of its ships coming to Montreal, because of the inadequacy of passenger handling facilities there, we begin to see the reason why a local committee which would be interested first and foremost in the port, but also in the port as an adjunct of the local community, could fulfil that function far better than any procedure which has been put forward thus far.
Before taking my seat, there is one point upon which the minister might be able to enlighten us. Since my earlier quotation showed that the original import of the national harbours board was to set up a group of experts, each of whom would be expert irt one field or another of port management, perhaps the minister could tell us in what particular fields the present members are expert, and what particular qualifications or expertness will be looked for in the new member.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I shall say just a word. The arguments of my hon. friends opposite seem, in effect, to come back to this, that they would like to see-and certainly this was the effect of what was said by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace-the re-establishment of local commissions such as existed before.
I do not think anyone who has had the opportunity of examining what took place formerly would wish to go back to that kind of administration.


Howard Charles Green: Of course he did not advocate that at all.


William McLean Hamilton: No.


George Carlyle Marler: Perhaps I misunderstood what he said, but he certainly created in my mind the impression that he favoured a much greater degree of responsibility on the part of local interests than on the part of the national harbours board itself.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to talk about fire protection in Montreal, or passenger handling facilities. Perhaps I may not share the views of my hon. friend, but I believe I can deal with those matters more conveniently when we are discussing the estimates of the national harbours board.
1516	HOUSE OF
National Harbours Board Act
So far as the capabilities of the members to be appointed are concerned, all I can say is that at the present time we have Brigadier Archer, a civil engineer, and Mr. Bennett Roberts, who is the present chairman and who has had a long and very wide experience in the government service, and who is concerned with the financial administration. So far as new ones are concerned, we shall try to combine territorial qualifications with the factors of ability needed, and a familiarity with the kind of business carried on by the harbours, so as to promote their use to the maximum advantage of the communities they serve.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the Minister of Transport misunderstood the purport of my remarks which, I thought, were reasonably clear. I talked, not of any individual commission to administer an individual port; I talked about and referred to a local advisory group who would be more familiar with conditions and who could be referred to more adequately for advice and guidance on matters concerning a particular port in a particular locality.
I am greatly disturbed by the evasiveness of the minister as to the responsibilities of the individual members of the board. I turn to another section of Hansard for 1936, and the debate which took place when the national harbours board was set up originally. The then minister of transport is reported as follows at page 1262 of Hansard:
It is intended that each of the three members constituting the central harbours board shall be an expert in some branch of port activity, and that engineering works which have heretofore been under the direction of small local staffs will in future be carried out with the best engineering skill available in the government services.
The last part of the quotation has no particular applicability here, but I read it so that no one would say that I had read only part. But the intent in the setting up of the board was made quite clear at that time. I do not think it is quite adequate for the minister to stand up now and pass this off merely by reciting the names of the members of the board, and the fact that one is a civil engineer, and the other has been chairman for a long time.


George Carlyle Marler: I did not say that.


William McLean Hamilton: And
then he indicates that he is going to get two more good men. We certainly hope he will be getting more good men. But I do feel that when a harbours board, or any other commission of this government, is set up in accordance with a certain plan, when it is explained what that plan will be. this house,


in considering that group in the future, is fully entitled to know what thoughts the government has in relation to the particular qualifications of those people. Since the need for those qualifications has been specifically set out, and the fact that the qualifications will not duplicate one another, but will differ, I do think that more adequate information should be forthcoming from the Minister of Transport on this point.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I had not thought that 1 would be taking part in this debate, but I have become interested in the statement made by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace and what seemed to me an inadequate answer by the minister. I was very interested in the remarks quoted by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace this afternoon. As I understand it, 19 years ago the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he referred to the setting up of this board, referred to it in terms which interested me, because it seemed to me a rather unusual board. One usually thinks of a board, at least I do, as people with a kind of general business knowledge or capacity, who are brought in to consider and deal with the work of those who are closer to the business and who are expert in that particular line of business. Whether or not the description I have given is a fair one, that is the way that I would have thought about it. The statement read from the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce 19 years ago indicated to me something very different, something interesting, something a little surprising. This appears to be a board of experts, selected for some expert knowledge, one in engineering and one in finance. I am not sure what the other one is. I should like to know just what the relationship is between those experts and the ordinary people who carry on the business of the board; because, as I say, to me it was a new, interesting, unusual and rather surprising statement. I am not criticizing it at all. I only want to understand it better. Perhaps the minister can undertake the difficult task of making me understand it better.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think the hon. member for Greenwood should imply that it is very difficult to explain things to him. I have known him for a long time. I know that his powers of comprehension are very rapid, even though perhaps we may not agree as to the interpretation to be placed on facts.
I am sure that hon. members of the committee will realize, if they will reflect for a moment, that if one were starting up afresh and there were no members, one could perfectly well have in mind that one member of the board might, for example, be chosen

because he was a civil engineer, another because of his familiarity with financial administration, and still another because he was familiar with questions of law. I am sure hon. members will realize that, having appointed the first three members of the board, when it came time to replace any one of them, and to take into account the fact that territorial interests have to be represented, one could not, and one probably would not, adhere rigidly to the pattern which had been set up at the time the original board was appointed.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if it had ever been intended there was to be that rigidity in the appointment of members to the board, the statute would have so provided. It seems to me that one has to bear in mind the changes that have taken place since 1935 and the fact that things may be different as time progresses. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see someone who is familiar with the grain business; I would like to see someone who is familiar with the transportation business; but it is not always possible, having set the qualifications in some particular way, to find just exactly the people that one wishes, particularly if one has to take into account the factor of representing the different parts of the country; and that is a point on which a number of hon. members have already spoken.
It seems to me it would be difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule as to the practice that shall be invariably followed in making these appointments. But having regard to the existing composition of the board, that is to say, of the chairman who, as hon. members know, has only been recently appointed to the position of chairman in place of Mr. R. K. Smith, who was a lawyer, we now have someone familiar with financial administration; we also have a civil engineer; and I would like to think that in the future we would be looking for people who have experience in other fields which were related to the activities of the harbours, and I think particularly, as the hon. member for Selkirk suggested earlier, someone connected with the grain business, because of the preponderance of grain traffic that passes through the ports. There are probably a number of other capabilities that one would look around for, to which I have already alluded. All I can say is that if and when the bill has been passed we shall try to find people whose abilities fit them for the responsibilities that they are going to be asked to discharge, and also to facilitate the work of the national harbours board in the administration of our harbours.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister say a word on the other aspect of my question, namely whether those board members are
Historic Sites and Monuments Act quasi executive officials or whether they occupy what one ordinarily considers as the positions on the board, namely, for counsel, advice and decision on questions of principle? Are those men actually day to day or week to week executive officials as well as board members?


George Carlyle Marler: I think we can infer, from the fact that they are full-time members, that they are at the same time executive members, though, as hon. members know, there is in each port a port manager who has the responsibility for the day to day management of the port. Obviously the larger questions, policy and expenditures for improvements, naturally must be decided by the board itself.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Marler thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 181, to amend the National Harbours Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 24, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Lesage-Mr. Apple-whaite in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to amplify the definition of "historic place", to change slightly the representation of the board, and to provide further for changes in the method and amount of payments to members appointed by the governor in council, of living and travelling expenses and to provide for the payment of stenographic allowances.
Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, the work of the historic sites and monuments board has been drawing increasing attention across Canada during recent months, and particularly since it was formally establishd under an act on May 14, 1953. We welcome this resolution because it seems to indicate another step forward in the very important work of this group. The resolution indicates that by amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act it is the intention of the government to further define the term "historic place", to change slightly the representation of the board, and to provide further for changes in the method and amount of payments to members appointed by the governor in council, of living and travelling expenses, and to provide for the payment of stenographic allowances. As I read the resolution, it seems to indicate that
1518	HOUSE OF
Historic Sites and Monuments Act it is the intention of the government to deal with one or two points that are required to strengthen the act.
Interest in Canada in the preservation of our historic sites has proceeded very slowly but this is to be expected because we are still a comparatively young country. One of the main weaknesses has been in the definition of what constitutes an historic place. Section 2 (b) of the act defines "historic place" as a site, building or other place of national interest or significance. Looking at that casually it would seem to cover most cases. However, there is a widespread feeling in the country that some sites of historic interest are not receiving their due consideration.
This point was raised in the findings of the Massey commission, particularly in reference to edifices or old buildings which are rapidly disappearing with the onset of commercialism in the modern day. For example, in Montreal there are many buildings and ancient edifices connected with the early days of Canada which have already disappeared. I hope that there is going to be an attempt made to deal more specifically with this problem.
On the other hand, there have been some notable achievements by the national historic sites and monuments board when it was acting as an honorary group. I refer particularly to the Champlain habitations on the shores of the Annapolis basin in Nova Scotia. These have been restored and provide a good idea of the manner of life in the new world at the beginning of the seventeenth century.
But there is a field of historic interest which antedates the coming of the white man to this continent. I refer to the period of Indian occupation of this great North American continent, particularly on the prairies. There are many sites there that could be regarded as of great historic value. I trust that amendments will be brought down which will enlarge the activities of the board in reference to these important places of antiquity. Up until recent years there were only 48 historic sites marked throughout the prairie provinces; 20 in Alberta, 20 in Manitoba and 8 in Saskatchewan.


Jean Lesage: Up to what date?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That would be up to the time of the Massey commission.


Jean Lesage: We have made good progress since then.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I notice the annual report of the board indicates that there are some 188 sites awaiting action which would indicate that this deficiency has been taken care of.
rMr. Dinsdale.1

In connection with the amendment of the definition of "historic place" there is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. More attention should be paid to buildings connected with early governmental activity in this country. The Massey commission referred to the original legislative building in Fredericton, New Brunswick, which at the time of the commission report had been partially demolished. There are many similar buildings scattered across the country. The tendency in recent years in preserving historic sites has been directed to those connected with more recent political activities. I feel that it is much more important that we go back to the beginnings of our national life as a Canadian nation and preserve some of these public buildings for posterity.
Then the second part of the resolution indicates that there is to be a slight change in the representation of the board. Section 3 (b) of the act gives the board the power to make agreements with any persons for marking or commemorating historic places pursuant to this act and for the care and preservation of any place so marked or commemorated. The amendment suggests that an attempt is being made to draw on the resources of voluntary groups throughout the country and to co-ordinate the work of various levels of government, each of which is vitally interested in preserving the historic sites and monuments in their particular territory.
Up to the present time there has been a degree of co-operation between federal, provincial and local levels^ of government. For example, the province of Ontario has done an outstanding job in restoring and preserving Fort Henry at Kingston. This part of the resolution seems to indicate that an attempt may be made to provide for further co-operation at these three levels of government.
There are historical societies scattered right across the country. Many communities are becoming keenly aware of the necessity of preserving the history of their local area. They lack guidance however as to what is truly significant. I know in my own province there has been an increased activity in this regard and just in the past few weeks I have received notices of the formation of several local historical societies which have been set up to preserve the history of their local areas and to mark the sites of historic interest in their particular sections. I trust that when the amendments come before the house they will indicate an attempt to assist the activities of these local historical societies, to give them some guidance which will help them to work closely with the board officially established by the act.

Finally, the resolution indicates that there is to be further allowance for travelling expenses, and also provision for the payment of stenographic allowances. One of the main difficulties in coming to grips with the problem of preserving our historic sites has been the lack of funds. I also feel that one difficulty has been the lack of a comprehensive policy and even of imagination on the part of those in responsible circles. I trust that the amendments to the act that will be brought forward will represent a long step in the direction of overcoming some of these deficiencies I have indicated.


Leonard T. Stick: Mr. Chairman, the matter of historical sites is extremely important to us in Newfoundland. We have some of the oldest sites in Canada which we should like to see preserved. I understand that arrangements are now being made to have that done.
I have not much to say on the matter because we shall have a better opportunity to discuss this subject when the estimates are before the committee. There is, however, one matter about which I am much concerned and which should be even more important than historical sites. I refer to the matter of a national park for Newfoundland. If the minister, when he replies, will indicate to the committee this afternoon, just what is being done in that connection I know it will be a matter of great interest to the people of Newfoundland, not only from the standpoint of an historical site but from the standpoint of this park which we believe to be a great necessity.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I listened
with great interest to the explanation which the minister failed to make of this resolution. However, I must say that we are pleased to support the resolution because it indicates that the department is paying more attention to the question of the marking of historic sites, erecting monuments and so on. The very fact that the resolution calls for a further definition of what is an historic place I think indicates that the department is paying more attention to the proper marking of these sites and therefore wants a clearer definition of what is an historic site from the national point of view, or what is of national significance.
I remember some years ago asking the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) if he considered the discovery of the Columbia river worthy of being recognized and marked. I am pleased to say that recognition has been given this year by the erection of a monument by the national historic sites and monuments board to commemorate the discovery made by David Thompson. I shall have a few more words
Historic Sites and Monuments Act to say on that matter later. In fact, Mr. Chairman, what I have to say on this subject I shall reserve until the second reading of the bill.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, in taking part in the discussion of this resolution may I say that I too was wondering exactly what were to be the terms of reference here and the amplification of the definition of historic place. In my trips across the continent from time to time by motor vehicle I have found that we in Canada-and I have felt this for a long time-have been particularly lax in preserving for posterity what our forefathers have done. We have no markers, and those which are there for the purpose and had been erected in former days are quickly going to decay without the care they so rightfully deserve.
Last year on a resolution in respect of parks I had the privilege of submitting to the minister a proposal having to do with a particular monument in the Boundary Bay region of New Westminster riding. At that time I was not aware of the information that was available. However, since then I have discovered that a similar representation was made in former years by the lower mainland park committee; the Delta municipal council; the lower mainland region planning board; a former member of parliament, namely William Mott; and then by myself, to see whether or not the minister would take into consideration declaring that particular site a national park. At that time in answer to my question he set forth six particular stipulations that had to be met before a park would be created there. Unfortunately, however, some of these things are a little bit difficult to have. For instance, it is rather difficult to have and to preserve flora and fauna when there is none there.


Jean Lesage: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are not discussing the establishment of national parks. I let the hon. member for Trinity-Conception ask a short question, but we are now getting into a long speech on national parks in Canada. This bill has nothing to do with national parks.


The Deputy Chairman:: The point raised by the minister is well taken. As a matter of fact I was just checking at this end of the table in order to find out whether national parks and historic monuments happen to be administered under the same statute. I think the hon. member will agree that the remarks he wishes to make in connection with a national park would be better made when national parks are under consideration. At this stage I am afraid he will have to confine himself to remarks on historic sites and monuments.

Members' Retiring Allowances Act
Now that I have interrupted the hon. member, I wonder whether I might take the liberty to point out that I do not think this is the stage of the proceedings in this chamber at which members should indicate to the minister their interest in any particular historic site or monument, park or otherwise. Those matters should be discussed in detail when the estimates of the department are before the committee. If the remarks could now be kept as concise as I was so glad to notice the hon. member for Brandon-Souris kept his, we shall remain in order.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I may have said "national park" but I was not really considering a national park. It is a monument that I am really interested in at this time. It is a monument that was erected a good number of years ago by the government of Canada. I should like to have it preserved for posterity. I should like nothing better than to give this government and this minister the privilege of saying that it is his government that is going to preserve it and look after it for many years to come. I even have here a picture of the monument as it appeared in the Vancouver Sun of September 6, 1952.
Lest someone say that this is not particularly historic, and with all due deference to what the chairman has said with regard to keeping our remarks to the minimum possible at this time, I would suggest that this is possibly the time to mention the matter, before the bill is brought forward, just in case the minister decides he might have to modify his ideas or change the bill in order to include this particular monument in with the rest of them. This article is quite lengthy, but I should like to read all of it to indicate how historic the monument actually is.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Before the hon. member starts I think perhaps I had better make it clear, not having seen the article, that I am saying at this time that arguments applied specifically to any one historic place, site or monument do not constitute a subject for representations to be made on a general resolution preceding a money bill. There will be ample opportunity to discuss in detail any specific monument when the administration of the act is before the house on the estimates of the department.


Frederick George Hahn: Thank you. I shall arrange to be at hand to discuss this question in greater detail at that time.


Jean Lesage: I should like to say a word. First of all I wish to thank the hon. member for Brandon-Souris for the remarks he has made. I can assure the hon. member for
[The Deputy Chairman.]

Kootenay West that I was about to get up to make a very brief explanation of the resolution when my natural politeness kept me in my seat because the hon. member for Brandon-Souris had already risen.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That was my natural humour, too.


Mr. Weir:: Remember what I told you last night.


Jean Lesage: I wish to tell the committee that under the present Historic Sites and Monuments Act there is some question whether the minister has power to acquire buildings or structures that are of national interest because of their age or the character of their architecture. That was one of the recommendations of the Massey commission. One purpose of the measure is to make sure that the minister will have this power. The hon. member for Trinity-Conception asked about a national park for Newfoundland. I am also out of order, but to clear the ground may I say that I intend to introduce legislation for the establishment of a national park in Newfoundland at this session, and very shortly.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lesage thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 182, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETIRING ALLOWANCES ACT


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to provide that a withdrawal allowance payable under the act will include certain of the interest that has been paid on contributions and to provide further that where a member or a former member dies certain of the amounts which he may owe under the act will not be recovered.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, as the result of experience in the administration of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act since it came into force about two years ago, one or two inconsistencies have come to light which prompt the amendments involved in this measure. As these points are somewhat technical, I think it would be better to defer any detailed explanation until hon. members have an opportunity of reading

Financial Administration Act
the bill itself. I should like to make it clear, however, that there is no substantial or broad change in the proposals now being made.
Pension plans generally provide that it is undesirable to make claims against participants in pension schemes or their estates after death and we have had experience with the necessity of doing that under the provisions of our act. That is one of the inconsistencies.
It has also been found that it operates rather unfairly for the member who pays early for prior service before the act came into force in comparison with the member who defers his payments for prior sessions until such time as he becomes eligible for an allowance. Those are the two chief items that are involved in the proposed amendments.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the explanation of the parliamentary assistant, and I have just one question to ask him. Can we take it that this change is really to deal with an unforeseen effect of the wording of the statute, that it does nothing to tamper with the-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Actuarial soundness.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The exact words I want- actuarial soundness of the act and, as has already been hinted, the effects are indeed trivial and purely for the purpose of tidying up a really unexpected defect in the draftsmanship?


William Moore Benidickson: I can simply say yes to my hon. friend's question. I am informed by the actuaries that the effect upon the fund is quite minor.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 183, to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Financial Administration Act to provide that the Auditor General shall out of the consolidated revenue fund be paid a salary of $20,000 per annum with effect from July 1, 1954.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee will appreciate the work that the Auditor General has had to do and will be expected to do as the work of parliament grows. I was surprised to find that the Auditor General's salary was fixed at its present rate of $15,000 as long ago as 31 years. There has been no change in the salary since that time. We have felt that from the point of view of the standard of salary for a servant of parliament who has so much responsibility we should increase it from $15,000 to $20,000. That is the purpose of the measure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it will lie in the heart of anyone in the chamber to disagree with what the minister has said, but if I may detain the house for a very few minutes there are one or two things in connection with this office that I should like to put on the record.
I was interested to look back to the original debate when this office was set up in 1878. It is interesting to read the words used at that time in setting out the duties. I read from chapter 7 of the statutes of 1878, section 11:
For the more complete examination of the public accounts of the dominion, and for the reporting thereon to the House of Commons, the governor general may . . . appoint an officer, to be called the auditor general-
Before that time there had evidently been nobody whose job it was to take a detached view, as a servant of the House of Commons, and report to the House of Commons as to the work of the executive. It is in that quality, of a servant of the House of Commons, removable only by a joint address of both houses just as a judge is, that I should like to speak for a few moments this afternoon about this office of state.
It is interesting to note that in the original debate of April 2, 1878, the two chief participants were Sir Richard Cartwright and Sir John Macdonald, and for once they were in complete agreement. Mr. Cartwright said, as recorded at page 1624 of Hansard for that date:
If he understood correctly the design of the hon. gentleman who at that time conducted the affairs of this country, it was something similar to what he (Mr. Cartwright) proposed in his bill. There was at that time a deputy-inspector-general, who filled the office of deputy minister of finance. In addition to that officer, an auditor was created, and it was understood that that officer's duties would be mainly, if not altogether, confined to the task of auditing the public accounts.
Then on page 1625 I find this:
The main object of the bill was to carry that out, and inspire the public with confidence in the public accounts. It was deemed expedient, therefore, to adopt the English practice,-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is five o'clock and the house must proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I agree, Mr. Chairman. I was afraid you were interrupting me because I was out of order.
And the Speaker having resumed the chairr


Mr. Speaker:: There being no business under private and public bills, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
And the house resuming in committee:


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, when the business was interrupted I was giving instances in support of the minister's motion to increase the salary of the Auditor General, to show the useful work he has done for the house. And I would like to take a few moments more to give some further instances.
I had just finished referring to the old age security fund, and I wish to read a passage-

from page 61 of the Public Accounts showing a very curious manner of dealing with this situation. It says:
During the fiscal year $45-8 million was advanced by the Minister of Finance to the old age security fund to cover the excess of pension payments over tax receipts during 1953-54. This amount together with the amount of $99-5 million advances in 1952-53 to cover the deficit of the fund for 1952-53, brought the temporary loans by the Minister of Finance to the old age security fund to $145-3 million. Under the authority of vote 655 in Appropriation Act No. 4, c. 67 of the statutes of 1953-54 an amount of $99-5 million was charged to the "Reserve for possible losses on ultimate realization of active assets" and credited to the temporary loan account thus reducing the amount of temporary loans to the old age security fund to $45-8 million at the close of the year.
I have read these technical phrases because, in plain words, they indicate that what we have really done is show our expenditures as less than they actually were, and to have charged certain expenditures to another special fund.
I am not going to ask the committee to listen to me while I express my views as to the correctness of dealing with old age security fund requirements in this hole and corner manner. I hope that will be changed before long. I have never been able to understand why sensible people should try to deal with this in a way in which it is so easy to create misunderstanding or even worse. If directors of a company paid out a dividend on the strength of transactions such as these I am not at all sure they might not be held liable for some kind of misfeasance of duty. However, I shall not pursue that further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think you should not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not hear the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the hon. member should not pursue it further.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, I shall take your advice in that respect. I wish to refer to paragraph 30 of the Auditor General's report, in which he refers to a rather small matter, but one which seems to have been dealt with in a rather lighthearted way:
Another transaction involves application of the department of munitions and supply act, but it is a sentence in a departmental letter which invites attention. In 1944 it was decided that a contract price had been excessive and the company was directed to repay about $275,000. Refunds of $155,000 were made and after nine years the company offered $40,000 in full settlement of the balance of $120,000, which, with the approval of the governor in council, was accepted by the department. The acknowledging letter included: "In so far as we are concerned you may consider that this is to be accepted as a final payment on the indebtedness . . . and no effort will be made to collect the balance . . ." The propriety of the compromise settlement is not questioned, but existing legislation-section 23 of the Financial
Power, Fluids and Gas Administration Act-only permits the governor in council to delete from the accounts any uncollectable debt that does not exceed $1,000 and has been outstanding for 10 years or more. In this instance, the amount owing is such that the department cannot treat the claim as extinguished without parliamentary authority.
You will see, Mr. Chairman, how important it is to us to have a person competent and powerful, such as the Auditor General, who can look into these matters and bring them to our attention.
There are two further things I want to mention. I now refer to paragraph 52 of the Auditor General's report, which reads as follows:
Radio Canada building, Montreal, represents a capital investment of approximately $4,500,000. It is regarded as public property acquired for the international shortwave broadcasting service, but a substantial portion is occupied by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for purposes associated with its national service. No formal lease exists but the corporation pays rent at $1.79 per square foot for the space used for the ordinary services of the C.B.C. It cost $192,824	($1.64 per square
foot) to operate the building last year. The rental rate therefore is insufficient (a) to provide for depreciation, (b) to give a reasonable return on the capital investment, and (c) to recoup the cost of specially installed facilities. Consequently, the amount owing is such that the department cannot treat the claim as extinguished without parliamentary authority.
Well, it seems unnecessary to me for the C.B.C., in addition to all the other means of income it has, to have this indirect way of getting an additional amount.
I shall content myself with these matters, Mr. Chairman. As everyone who has seen these public accounts knows, there are 70 or 80 items brought to our attention, and for that reason and others that I shall not go into, it seems to me proper that the minister should praise the Auditor General as he did and should be recommending that his salary be increased.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 184, to amend the Financial Administration Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POWER, FLUIDS AND GAS LICENSING CONTROL OVER EXPORTATION OF ELECTRIC POWER AND FLUIDS, AND IMPORTATION OF GAS

Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 4, to regulate the exportation of power and fluids and the importation of gas.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the present bill is intended to replace an act that was placed on the statute books in 1907, that is, nearly

Power, Fluids and Gas half a century ago. The existing legislation, although it is not restricted to that field, has been associated in the public mind mainly with the policy of controlling the export of hydroelectric power. During the long course of its administration the export of fluids has come into the picture to some extent, especially in later years, but it is fair to say that until quite recently the act which is now being replaced has found its chief purpose and application in giving effect to the well defined attitude of the people of Canada toward the export of hydroelectric power.
Before dealing with the points in regard to which this bill differs from the provisions of the old act, I wish to refer, first, to some features of the advance of hydroelectric development in Canada, and also to some of the developments relating to Canada's gas and oil resources which have in late years placed the importance of those resources to the whole Canadian economy in an entirely new light. I shall also touch upon the policies affecting the administration of this legislation.
The production of electrical energy in Canada over the years has been a story of steady and rapid growth. When works now under construction are completed, by 1960, there will still remain in excess of 45 million horsepower for future harnessing. Happily a large amount of this potential power, which was formerly inaccessible in areas such as northern Labrador and the Yukon, should soon become accessible due to continued progress in the technique of long distance transmission of power at higher and higher voltages. A line now under construction in British Columbia will shortly be transmitting at 345,000 volts, which will be the highest transmission voltage on the North American, continent. Sweden at present is experimenting with transmission voltages in the order of 500,000 volts. These higher voltages, you will realize, mean much greater transmission distances, so the future picture is brighter than it has been for some time.
The question of export of electricity has been before the house on many occasions, with the principal debates commencing in 1907 when the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act was passed. Prior to 1907 some companies had undertaken the development of water power on the Canadian side of the border, and at that time an adequate market did not exist in this country for its total use. To render the projects economically feasible, contracts with United States firms were entered into by which blocks of power were transmitted to that country. The act of 1907 was passed to provide control over exports but was evidently not intended, in the earliest


years of its administration, wholly to preclude additional exports, since additional blocks were committed after that date. The general feeling at that time seems to have been that such export as was necessary to put the new power developments on a sound economic basis at their inception could be recalled at a later date as the need arose for its use in Canada.
This turned out to be fallacious. With this realization the policy firmed against export. On August 25, 1914, a minute of the privy council contained the following statement:
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 security and preserving their natural resource for the use of the people of Canada if and when needed by them.
In 1925, when the subject of export was again to the fore, this house adopted the following resolution:
That the export of hydroelectric power from Canada should be permitted only on a 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.
In 1927-28 the house passed a bill, defeated in the Senate, which provided that the power which was then vested in the governor in council with respect to grants of licences for the exportation of electric energy, should be vested in parliament and not in the governor in council. That was the whole purport of the bill.
In 1933 the then prime minister made the following statement in this house:
We cannot afford to export power and create community life in another country with industrial activities and then, when the requirements of our own country call for cutting off the licence to export, contemplate that situation without having regard to a statement made by a president of the United States that such action on our part would practically be considered an unfriendly act.
In 1938 the House of Commons again dealt with the subject and passed a bill which prevented the issue of any new licence for the export of power unless it had been expressly authorized by a private act of parliament. This bill was not reported back by the other house.
While there have been differences of opinion as to how the policy on exports should be implemented, there is no doubt that such policy has crystallized in one of no firm commitment for power, that licences should

be on a surplus interruptible basis only, and that they should be reviewed annually.
Licences have been and are being issued for surplus interruptible power, and these together with the firm licences are reviewed before annual renewal. Applications are considered only for surplus interruptible power or for increases in existing surplus licences, and before any decision is taken it is cleared with the provincial government concerned. Finally, all export contracts of licensees must have attached to them copies of the export licence so that recipients of electric power from licensees may be fully aware of all conditions under which licences are granted.
May I turn now to the other resources to which the legislation relates. During the last few years since the oil discovery at Leduc in Alberta in 1947 there has been a continuous large and widespread exploration and development program in western Canada, which has resulted in the establishment of reserves of oil of approximately 2,750 million barrels, and reserves of natural gas probably in excess of 16 trillion cubic feet.
The market for crude petroleum has been extended by the building of pipe lines to the Pacific coast and to the Sarnia area in Ontario. These markets, together with the consumption on the prairies, resulted in 1954 in a production of approximately 95J million barrels, of which 88 million barrels were from Alberta, 5 million from Saskatchewan and 2 million from Manitoba. This is in contrast to a production of 6 [DOT] 8 million barrels in western Canada in 1947, the year of the Leduc discovery.
As a result of this large increase in production the rate of discovery has exceeded the market outlets. The potential production is now considerably in excess of the actual production. The refineries in the prairie provinces are now wholly supplied by crude oil from western Canada but it is unlikely, owing to geographical conditions, that all Canadian refineries will ever be supplied by Canadian oil. However, oil from the prairie provinces is now being exported to the adjoining areas of the United States and expansion in this respect may be expected in the future, particularly on the west coast.
In the course of the search for oil large quantities of natural gas have been found, particularly in Alberta and in the northeastern part of British Columbia, with smaller amounts in Saskatchewan. Natural gas has been supplied by pipe line to local centres of population in western Canada within economic reach of the gas fields. However, the reserves have grown so rapidly that there is urgent need for large markets. It is proposed to supply these by large pipe lines, 50433-97
Power, Fluids and Gas one of which is to be built from the Peace river area through central British Columbia to Vancouver and the adjoining Pacific northwest area of the United States, and the other from southern Alberta to supply central Canada, with a branch pipe line from Winnipeg south to the United States midwest. Sufficient gas is available and has been dedicated to these lines, and arrangements are now in preparation for their construction.
In 1954 there were more than 2,200 well completions in western Canada. Approximately 770 of these were exploration wells which were unproductive. The remainder were productive oil and gas wells. As a result of this drilling it has been estimated that there has been an increase in the gas reserves in western Canada of 4 trillion cubic feet and an increase in the oil reserves of about 600 million barrels.
In Manitoba in 1954 approximately 300 wells were drilled and the discoveries of oil have been most gratifying. There has however been no significant discovery of natural gas.
In Saskatchewan more than 700 wells were drilled during 1954 and a number of new discoveries of light oil were made. One of the important developments in Saskatchewan during 1954 was the arrangement made to market the medium gravity crude oil in the United States. Natural gas produced in Saskatchewan is now supplying a number of towns and cities, including Saskatoon, but sufficient volumes are not yet available to supply all provincial requirements. There is no doubt that with expanded markets the petroleum and natural gas industry in western Canada will continue to grow at a sufficient rate to meet all demands.
There have been many debates in this house on the policy which should be adopted for the export of oil and natural gas. The policy of the government with respect to oil was given to the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on March 13, 1953, and I quote from page 2928 of Hansard:
A distinction must be made between exports of petroleum and exports of natural gas. Petroleum is a commodity which moves freely across all international boundaries, as does iron ore, wheat and certain other basic commodities. The refiner buys his petroleum wherever he can buy it cheapest. He may buy today from Alberta, tomorrow from Venezuela, the next day from the Middle East and the next day from the United States, depending upon where he can make the best arrangement. No problem of continuous supply is involved. If one source becomes no longer available, the refiner may buy from another source. Petroleum can be moved in tanker ships, tank cars or tank wagons, and in such event its export from Canada is not under government control. In other words, as I have pointed out, petroleum moving in the manner I have just stated does not come under the provisions of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
1526	HOUSE OF
Power, Fluids and Gas
Movement by pipe line is under government export control, but this does not alter the fact that there is no obligation imposed upon the government of Canada to maintain a continuous supply. Canada's national policy should therefore be, first, to move petroleum from the source of production to refineries within economic distance in the cheapest possible way; second, to arrange for markets for that portion of the Canadian output that cannot be economically used in Canadian refineries in the market that offers the highest return to the producer. This is the policy this government has followed and intends to follow.
Pursuant to that policy, the interprovincial pipe line has been built from Edmonton to Superior, Wisconsin, serving refineries at Moose Jaw, Regina and Winnipeg. The present route involves movement of the petroleum from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario, by lake tankers. The entire movement from Edmonton to Sarnia is in bond, except for permits that have been granted to export small quantities of petroleum to the United States.
Interprovincial Pipe Line is presently engaged in extending this pipe line through the United States to Sarnia with the purpose of arranging for a continuous supply at Sarnia and further lowering the cost of transportation. The "in-bond" privilege presently granted to Interprovincial will apply to the new pipe line. This is consistent with government policy of approving the lowest possible cost of transportation from the source of supply to refining centres within economic distance of the source.
The policy of the government with respect to natural gas was expressed on the same day by the minister at page 2929 of Hansard, and I quote the pertinent section of that speech:
". . . Therefore the policy of the government of Canada is to refuse permits for moving natural gas by pipe line across an international boundary until such time as we are convinced that there can be no economic use, present or future, for that natural gas within Canada.
In brief, therefore, the policy with respect to these items is that export of oil should be based on the movement from the source of production to refineries in the cheapest possible way, and to arrange for that portion of the Canadian output that cannot be economically used in Canadian refineries the market that offers the highest return to the producer; that with respect to electricity there should be no firm export commitments and authorizations given only for interruptible surpluses; and that natural gas should leave Canada only when it is demonstrated to be surplus to determined Canadian needs.
With this background relating to the resources with which this legislation is concerned, and to the policies that are being followed, may I now direct attention to the main features of the bill. While this new bill has been introduced to replace the act of 1907, the principles underlying the former act remain largely undisturbed. Some changes which are proposed result from experience in the administration of this act over the years, and others from the broad developments which have been taking place


in the energy field, particularly since the questions of distribution of natural gas and petroleum products have assumed such a large place.
It is proposed to drop from this bill the existing requirement that applicants for export licences must obtain a licence to construct export pipe lines. The house will be aware that this is now a provision of the Pipe Lines Act, and there seems to be no necessity for duplicating the provisions of that legislation. No change, however, is being made in the existing law which requires applicants to obtain licences for the construction of transmission lines for the export of electricity.
In addition to a licence to construct export facilities, a person must have a licence which authorizes the volumes or quantities which may be exported through such facilities. Under present-day conditions it has seemed desirable to consider also what control should be exercised over the construction of import facilities and import volumes. The construction of lines for the import of oil is, of course, covered by the Pipe Lines Act, but in accordance with the policy I described earlier there does not appear to be any necessity for controlling import volumes.
In the case of electricity, two factors were considered. As any country is always anxious to obtain electric power, and as it is released by any country only under most stringent conditions, there seemed little purpose in requiring construction or import licences. However, in the case of natural gas it is common sense to assure ourselves that any import would be based on continuity of supply, and also to make certain that Canada's own gas resources can be developed in the most advantageous manner. For these reasons import control of natural gas and similar gases is being provided for. Construction of import gas pipe lines is, of course, covered in the pipe lines legislation.
Under the existing act the governor in council is empowered to impose, by proclamation, export duties not exceeding $10 per annum per horsepower on power exported from Canada, and not exceeding 10 cents per thousand cubic feet on fluids, including gas, exported from Canada. While an export tax of three one-hundredths of a cent per kilowatt hour, equal roughly to $2 per horsepower per annum, has been imposed since 1925 on electricity exported, no tax has ever been levied on the export of gas or other fluids. It is therefore proposed that the tax provision with respect to electricity be maintained, and that the tax provision with respect to fluids be dropped.
The house will be aware that in the various applications which have been heard by the

federal power commission in the United States this Canadian provision for a tax on natural gas has given rise to considerable concern. As the tax on fluids has never been imposed, and to give the necessary reassurance that it is not the policy of the government to impose one, its deletion is proposed. The house will have noted that in the corresponding section of the present act there is also authority to remove, reimpose or vary the amount of the tax. In view of the fact that similar authority has been provided under the Financial Administration Act, it is the view that it need not be restated in the present bill. The section with respect to exemption from tax has been removed, since any licensee in receiving a licence has given an undertaking to supply in Canada in any event.
The present act contains two sections covering revocation of licences. The new bill provides only one revocation section, under which licences may be revoked when a licensee has received notice of his breach of the terms or conditions of his licence and he continues to refuse or neglect to comply. I think it will be agreed that authority to export is a most valuable asset to any licensee, and that he would not knowingly place himself in the position of having this taken away. In these circumstances it is felt that the revocation clause as now provided will be adequate.
In the old act the section dealing with the question of surplus power leaves much to be desired. It is felt that this should be clarified. It is proposed to specify that "surplus" shall be that power which remains after due allowance has been made for distribution to customers for use in Canada during the period of the licence. In the case of electricity, power reserves for use in Canada are determinable on a day to day, week to week or month to month basis. Licences are therefore drawn on a maximum kilowatt rate, with an over-all annual kilowatt hour export rate. In practice, the only power that leaves Canada is that which is not immediately required for Canadian needs.
In the case of natural gas, "surplus" must of necessity have a different meaning. The house will recall that on April 15, 1953, at page 3881 of Hansard, the Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out that the principal considerations in the construction and operation of any gas pipe line are: That sufficient gas must be transported for such periods as will permit the amortization of the capital costs of construction; that adequate and continuing deliveries of gas must be assured to distributors to enable them to underwrite the capital costs of distribution; and that adequate 50433-974
Power, Fluids and Gas and continuing supplies of gas must be assured to consumers. Therefore, in determining what shall be considered surplus, and so exportable, the governor in council in granting a licence for gas export will be guided by these considerations.
What will be done is that a thorough and complete review of the gas available to the applicant will be made. As accurate a determination of the requirements of Canada as is possible will also be made, so that during the term of the licence requested by the applicant there will be no possibility of the applicant being unable to meet any reasonable Canadian demand for service. Once the reserve position and the needs of Canadians have been established, the governor in council will be in a position to pass on the application for the remaining gas, any part of which he may determine to be surplus for the period of the licence.
I believe I have covered the major changes which are being placed before the house. In concluding, may I again state that in drafting the bill we have sought to retain the fundamental principles of the existing legislation, and to make only those changes which experience and new conditions indicate are required.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has given a very interesting and instructive review of the background of this bill, and I think has explained the policy of the government with regard thereto. There is no need for me to deal at any length with many of the features to which he has referred. I merely point out that the bill provides for the repeal of an act known as the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
That act, as I read it, has several key provisions, particularly when one is considering the bill now before the house. First of all, the act gives a licensing control over export only of power, and also of petroleum, natural gas and other fluids by pipe line. Hon. members will notice that it does not cover flowing water, so the act would not be applicable, I take it-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Water flowing through a pipe line.


Howard Charles Green: Unless the water flows through a pipe line. If it just flows down a river bed it is not covered by the act as I read the present legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: The present act gives very wide power to revoke a licence. That is contained in section 6, subsection 2, which reads:
Such licence is revocable upon such notice to the licensee as the governor in council deems reasonable in each case.

Power, Fluids and Gas
I do not suppose it would be possible to have a power of revocation much wider than the one contained in the present act. Then there is the power to limit exportation to the surplus after Canadian needs have been met, and also to regulate the price on export so that price will not be lower than the price charged to Canadian consumers. That power is very carefully set out in the present act, and in reading the debates which took place in 1907 when the act was first placed on the statute books one finds a reason for the precautions which were taken to ensure that Canadian requirements would be met before there was any export. For example, section 7 provides:
Any such licence may provide that the quantity of power or fluid to be exported shall be limited to the surplus, after the licensee has supplied for distribution to customers for use in Canada power or fluid to the extent defined by such licence, at prices and in accordance with conditions, rules and regulations prescribed by the governor in council.
Then there is subsection 2 which reads:
Every such licence is revocable at will by the governor in council if the licensee refuses or neglects to comply with any of the conditions imposed with regard to the supply and distribution of power or fluid in Canada.
There is also a regulation which will be found in an order in council passed on October 6, 1954, P.C. 1954-1522. I refer to clause 11, which reads as follows:
The price charged by any licensee for any electricity, petroleum or natural gas exported by him shall not be lower than the price at which electricity, petroleum or natural gas, respectively, is supplied by him or by his supplier in similar quantities and under similar conditions of sale for consumption in Canada.
One other feature of the present act to which I wish to refer is the power written into it to collect these export duties. That is contained in section 4 (a), and then there is section 4 (b), to which the minister referred, dealing with the right to remove or reimpose these duties or vary the amount thereof but which is not material for the purpose of my submission today.
There we find this in clause (c): exempt from the payment of such duties-
That is, the governor in council may exempt.
-such persons as comply with the direction of the governor in council with regard to the quantity of power or fluid to be supplied by such persons for distribution to customers for use in Canada.
There you find a precaution written into the legislation, again for the purpose of ensuring that Canadian consumers have the first chance at these commodities which were to be exported under licence.
As I have said, the act was first passed nearly half a century ago, in 1907. It was passed because the power potential of Niagara

falls was then being developed. The Conservative attitude at that time, as it has continued throughout and is today, was one of serving Canadians first. It was a Canada first policy. The members of the party to which I have the honour to belong believed then, as they believe now, that Canadians should be given the first opportunity to use their own resources. I have here a copy of the debates at that time, and the minister of justice summed up the purpose quite well, I think, in these words to be found in volume I of Hansard for 1906-07, column 1294:
The whole purpose of the legislation, as explained last year-
There had been legislation introduced the year before, I believe, but it had not become law.
-is not the collection of revenue alone, but the affording to the dominion authorities an efficient control over companies engaged in the production of power and the means of ensuring to the Canadian people the enjoyment of the great natural advantages which they have by reason of the wonderful water power at Niagara.
On the following page we find a reference to the imposition of duties, which is an important question. I shall take time to read it to hon. members.
If there is, under the provisions of this bill, found necessity to act. if any particular producer does not supply to Canadian customers the proportion of power which Canadian customers are desirous of having, and which it is reasonable he should supply, there is at once means to force his hand in that regard by imposing upon any power which that man seeks to export, a duty which will be practically prohibitive, a duty which would make it his interest at once to supply the Canadian demand first, and which would in that way secure to the people of this country the enjoyment of their own natural advantages. That, in brief, is the whole purpose of this legislation, and it has seemed after consideration that the means which we are here adopting by the proposal to issue licences on the conditions described, supplemented by the power to impose a duty if it should be necessary as a restriction upon an undue amount of exportation, is a way in which the desired end can be well accomplished.
This act has stood with very little change since it was passed in 1907. Recently, however, certain situations have arisen in Canada. For example, one of the companies incorporated to build a natural gas pipe line, namely Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, desired to bring natural gas down from the Peace river country through the central portion of British Columbia, and then export the surplus to the United States. When that company applied to the federal power commission at Washington for permission to do so, they found one obstacle was the fact that the licence given by Canada was too restrictive, and the power to revoke the licence was very wide. I believe those objections were raised in Washington.

Last year, as hon. members know, there was an attempt by Consumers' Gas Company of Toronto to import natural gas from the United States to serve the Toronto area. It was considered that the effect of such a move would be to make it impossible to have a natural gas pipe line across Canada wholly on Canadian soil. The act I am discussing contained no provision to control the import of gas.
Then, of course, there has been the trouble over the Columbia river development. We have heard a lot about that in the last few days. In addition, and I think perhaps of more significance in recent years the importance of water power, oil, natural gas, and uranium, which I think comes into the picture, has been increasing. These resources have now achieved an importance in Canada which can best be described as amazing.
Before I go on to deal with the manner in which Bill No. 4 meets these situations, I would ask that we call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had just pointed out that in recent years four significant situations had arisen in connection with these resources of power, oil and natural gas. One of these was that the export licence issued by the dominion government had been found so restrictive that it was proving to be a handicap in connection with sales of Canadian resources. Second, there was no power in the old act to control the importation of natural gas, as distinguished from the exportation. Then I mentioned the trouble that had arisen over the development of power on the Columbia river. Finally I said that water power, oil, natural gas and uranium in recent years have assumed tremendous importance in the Canadian picture.
The bill does not purport to deal with the last two situations, but it does deal with the first two. We find that there is power to give much wider rights under a licence. It will no longer be possible for a licence to be cancelled arbitrarily. Then, too, the measure broadens the definition of "gas", and it provides for licensing control over the importation of that product. So in these ways it meets the first two situations to which I have referred.
In addition, as the minister mentioned, it removes the power to levy export duties on
Power, Fluids and Gas oil and gas, and also removes most of the powers to make sure that Canadian consumers have the first opportunity to use their natural resources. For example, though it takes away entirely the power to levy a duty on oil and gas, there still remains the power to levy a duty on electrical power, but the provision that an exemption may be granted from that duty, if Canadian consumers are given adequate supplies, has been removed.
It also removes the condition found in section 7 (1) of the existing act that the licence can set prices, in order that the Canadian consumer will have first call on these resources. It removes, too, the power to revoke a licence if Canadian consumers' needs are not being met.
I presume the regulations, to which I referred this afternoon and which also deal with prices, will expire with the old act, because a new set of regulations will have to be passed under the new act. There would appear to be only one direct protection left for the Canadian consumer, and that is the provision that a licence may-and I stress the word "may"; it does not say "shall"- require that the export shall be limited to the surplus after customers in Canada have been supplied.
We believe that the Canadian policy must be to secure to the people of Canada enjoyment of their own natural advantages. We ask that the minister give the assurance that that is the intention in the administration of this new measure. We believe such a policy is of vital importance to the nation, and becomes more vital every year as Canada develops and as the United States becomes shorter and shorter of many of her essential raw materials. The use in Canada provisions are more important now than ever. Yet they appear to have been weakened in this bill. It depends entirely, of course, upon what regulations are passed under the bill, and I think it would be much better if it were made obligatory to have this provision written into a licence. This afternoon the minister gave a definition of what would be considered surplus, dealing first with power and then with gas and oil. Perhaps he did not deal with oil, but he did deal with gas. The definition of surplus gas was different from the definition of surplus power. It may be that those definitions should be written into the act or into the regulations in some way. I did not gather from the minister's remarks whether it was intended that those particular definitions would be written into the regulations, and I suggest that consideration be given to some procedure of that kind.
I would remind hon. members that the United States has a very strict provision in

Power, Fluids and Gas its law. For example, in the natural gas act of that country the test which must be applied by the federal power commission before granting a licence to export gas is whether the proposed exportation or importation will be consistent with the public interest. And in practice this question, this test of public interest, has been interpreted in such a way that only surplus United States gas can be exported. Further, United States needs must come first. The gas which is being exported can actually be shut off if it should be proved at any time that there are existing needs in the United States adjacent to the line by which it is proposed to export the gas.
The bill meets some of these situations to which I have referred. But we believe that it should be considered only as a stop-gap measure. It does not go very far toward establishing a national energy policy for Canada.
When the minister was speaking he said he intended to deal with administration under the bill; and I took from his statement that he was going to state what administrative machinery would be set up. However, he said nothing along that line. The bill does not name any minister or any department to administer this legislation.
At present we have a very complex situation in the administration of measures of this kind, or measures having to do with the problem we are considering. For example, the Minister of Trade and Commerce issues licences under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. They are supposed to come under the standards branch of his department. I find that on page 66 of the annual report for 1953. On that page there is reference to the administration of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act; yet in actual practice I understand that the expert on this question in the Department of Trade and Commerce is a Dr. John Davis, who is not in the standards branch at all but i& associate director of the economics branch.
Then the Canadian authority on oil and natural gas is Dr. George S. Hume of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Water power comes under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The Pipe Lines Act is administered not by the Department of Trade and Commerce but by the Department of Transport. That department has little or no staff acquainted with pipe-line problems, yet there lies the administration of the Pipe Lines Act.
Another governmental body comes into the picture in the board of transport commissioners. They hear all the applications for permission to instal a pipe line; and


they, too, I believe have practically no staff trained to deal with those particular problems.
In so far as power is concerned, we now find the international joint commission exercising a great deal of authority. Certainly in connection with the Columbia river development that commission is the paramount body at the present time. I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether this situation is to continue under the new act, or is this new act the first step toward an adequate national energy policy with effective administrative machinery.
We believe there is great need for an over-all energy policy. Let us get away from dealing with the problem piecemeal, with different departments concerned. It is not an efficient way to deal with these important questions. For example, we suggest that consideration be given to setting up what might be called a national energy board, under which would be gathered a professional staff to deal with those questions, which would have the necessary information and the necessary training, and which could recommend policy to the government. Then once policy had been decided upon by the government, the board could implement that policy.
We have a similar board in the air transport board. It may be that there could be a national energy board with more independence than the air transport board has under present legislation; but it does seem that some such board would be very helpful in meeting the problems which will arise in connection with a national energy policy for Canada. Such a board could administer this particular bill that we are considering tonight. It could administer and advise on water power problems such as are bound to arise under Bill No. 3, which received second reading last night. This afternoon the minister mentioned the tremendous power potential in the Yukon and in Labrador. In connection with those developments there will have to be some proper administrative body here in Ottawa.
I believe that a board such as the one I have mentioned could very well do work of that kind, and also in the use of atomic energy for peacetime purposes. It is obvious now that in a few years Canada will be producing power from atomic energy. That will bring up a whole new set of problems, and some department is going to be required to accept the responsibility for dealing with those problems. They are all one form or another of national energy, and I believe a national energy board could very well meet the situation.

The big four in Canadian development in the years that lie ahead are in my opinion power from water, natural gas and oil, and power in the form of atomic energy from uranium.


Mr, Winters:: Don't forget coal.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I will add coal as a fifth. I am afraid that the situation with regard to coal is a little more difficult. Each one of the four I have mentioned is easily transportable. This afternoon the minister said that power can now be transmitted for hundreds of miles. Oil can be carried for thousands of miles by pipe line, and so can natural gas. Power from uranium perhaps will be even more readily transportable than the other three forms. I hope it will be possible in a very few years to have power developed from atomic energy in those parts of Canada where there is little prospect of there being any other type of power. These big four will largely determine the location of industry and population in our country.
We believe the energy resources are among Canada's greatest assets, and that they can go far to make her one of the leading nations of the world. But if this is to be done we must get away from the present hit and miss method of dealing with those resources. We must have in Canada a national energy policy for the use of those resources, and the administrative machinery to carry it out. We believe that now is the time to get this done.
We support the bill as a half measure leading in the direction I have indicated; but we hope the government will move without further delay to take the other steps required to make those four wonderful resources fully available to the Canadian people in the most efficient form.


Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all express my appreciation to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the very lucid explanation he gave today which, to a greater extent than any other previous speech by the minister on this subject, has shown an awareness of the actual rate of growth of the western Canada gas and oil industry, and I think a greater appreciation than earlier speeches by the minister of the importance to the west and to this country of access to markets south of the forty-ninth parallel.
Further, I should like to say that I am in full accord with two sections of this bill dealing with the removal of controls on the export of natural gas. I shall explain my position with reference to those two points in a moment or two. On the other point, dealing with restrictions on the import of
Power, Fluids and Gas natural gas, I have only one thing to add. I have no objection to that move, but I feel that in the interests of the consumers of eastern Canada who are now using United States gas, any measures designed to place restrictions upon the import of that product should in fairness to those consumers be accompanied by steps by this government to ensure that on the cut-off of gas from the United States the eastern Canadian consumer is not going to find his bill jacked up by higher prices for gas from western Canada.
The minister pointed out in his address there has been some concern indicated in Washington during the last year or two before the federal power commission about restrictions on the export of gas from this country and the amendments he proposes to this act are designed to eliminate those objections. My only regret in this regard is that the minister and the government did not see fit, when this question was raised in the house some two years ago and repeated last year, to so amend this act as to give Canada a much better chance than it has had in the past two years to break into the markets of the United States northwest and middle-western states.
I might say that these amendments if passed are not going to offer any firm guarantee that Canada will be able to sell gas in the United States, but it is true to say that without these amendments we would have about as much chance as a snowball in hell of cracking any United States gas market. With these amendments the odds against the capture of the markets we must have in the United States have been greatly reduced. If these amendments are backed up by government policy which is a little more favourably disposed toward and a little more aware of the need of United States markets for Canadian gas, then I am sure in the next year or two we can capture certain vitally needed United States gas markets.
I should like to touch briefly upon a little past history in regard to this act. On March 31, 1953, there was a debate in this house in connection with Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited, at which time I made some comments concerning the question of the security of supply of gas brought into a country from a foreign source. I said, as reported on page 3471 of Hansard:
The doubts of the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning gas exchange, and the fears of others both in this house and elsewhere in Canada, that dependence upon a foreign source of gas would mean insecurity, both as to supply and price, are shared by the United States in the Pacific northwest and Washington. There is the fear that dependence on Canadian gas could mean insecurity of supply and price. Such fears might, in fact, result in rejection by the United States of the Westcoast Transmission Company's proposal
1532	HOUSE OF
Power, Fluids and Gas
for a gas line from the Peace river fields of northern Alberta and British Columbia down to Vancouver, Seattle, Portland and other communities. At this stage of the federal power commission hearings on the Westcoast application, and the alternative proposal for dedication of the Pacific northwest to gas from more distant United States fields, the odds are probably no better than even money that Westcoast can win out.
If this government is strongly desirous of Peace river gas reaching the Pacific it will likely have to give-despite the restrictions of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act-the federal power commission a guarantee that the act would not be used to cut off gas supply to the United States northwest for at least twenty times the duration of the present one-year export permit, and further guarantee that gas costs would not be raised to prohibitive levels by application of the act's power to impose an export tax of up to ten cents per thousand cubic feet. When and if the government presents that guarantee-without which British Columbia might not get a gas pipe line- this government might logically raise in Washington the broad question of a large scale gas exchange treaty.
During the balance of 1953 and through 1954 debates continued both in the United States and here on this question of security of supply from foreign sources of gas and so on. During the period 1953-54 we find in a great many United States publications, in the speeches of members of the United States congress and state legislatures, in the publicity put out by the competing pipe line companies, United States and Canadian, many references to Canada's exportation law. We find that in the United States northwestern states, in the arguments against the admission of Canadian gas a great deal of use was made of speeches by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other members of this house when expressing their views on Canada's gas policy.
We also find a great deal of use made of the restrictions or powers contained in this act under which the flow of gas to the great United States market could be cut off or curtailed at the whim of the federal government without any public hearing. We find a great deal of use made in the propaganda against Canadian gas of the power under this act as it then stood to impose an export tax of up to 10 cents per thousand feet without any public hearing, without any opportunity to a United States utility or United States consumer to appear before a competent public board and argue his case. We find in fact that the Americans were perhaps quite justifiably using the ancient and out-dated terms of this act to build up a strong case against the admission of our gas to these badly needed United States markets.
To go back to about the middle of May, 1954, at that time the federal power commission counsel in Washington issued a report urging that the federal power commission reject the application for the import of
[Mr. Nickle.J

Canadian gas to the northwestern states. There was at that time an exchange in this house between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and myself. I might say that for several months prior to that time I had had discussions with the advisers to the minister on matters relating to oil and gas, and had made some specific recommendations as to amendments to the act which are now embodied in the amendments brought forward by the minister.
I had argued during these discussions with the minister's advisers that if we were to capture the United States market and if British Columbia were to have a gas line the government must move, and move fast, to amend this act or, in lieu of an amendment, give adequate guarantees to the federal power commission that there would be no interference by the Canadian government with the commercial contract between Westcoast Transmission and the United States utility distributor. On May 12, 1954, as reported on page 4646 of Hansard, we had this exchange:


Carl Olof Nickle: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister did indicate, of course, that the government had done everything possible to encourage Westcoast Transmission. Can the minister indicate whether or not the government has ensured, or is now prepared to ensure, to the federal power commission of the United States security of both supply and price of Canadian gas to Westcoast Transmission for a sufficient period of years to amortize the heavy investment in transmission lines and distribution systems of gas supplied to the United States northwest? I ask that question, sir, because of fear of insecurity which has a great deal to do with the present-
At that stage there were some interruptions in the house and Mr. Speaker called "order". Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave this reply:


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the news collecting agency of the very efficient periodical my hon. friend publishes has broken down, because the supply of gas has been assured for 22 years, that being the period of the licence granted by the province of Alberta. The federal government has nothing whatever to do with the price. It has no legislation which would enable it to interfere in that connection which is purely a provincial matter. However. I may say that in the report 1 have of the document filed by the solicitor for the federal power commission none of the points mentioned by my hon. friend are raised.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. I disagree with the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Carl Olof Nickle: In connection with the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act this government-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Carl Olof Nickle: -retains authority by order in
council to impose an export tax-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Carl Olof Nickle: -on gas exported from Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Carl Olof Nickle: Could the minister assure us that he has given the United States an assurance that the

federal government will not impose an export tax during a sufficient period of time to ensure the amortization of the investment of the United States' side of the pipeline system?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, we have neither been asked to give nor have we given any such assurance. I suggest that my hon. friend is raising points with which the commission have not interested themselves up to date and I would hesitate to give any unsolicited commitments on these points.
Mr. Speaker, what did not appear in the record of the house was a comment I made to some of my colleagues when I left the chamber after that exchange with the minister. Outside of this chamber I commented that the fact that this government had not recognized the dangers of the campaign being fought in the United States against Canadian gas, the fact that this government had not seen fit to amend this act in such a way as to give the United States consumer a reasonable degree of security of supply and price, had sounded the end of any hopes of approval in the immediate future by the United States of the import of Canadian gas.
That prediction was borne out three weeks later, in June, 1954, when the federal power commission rejected the application of West-coast Transmission, and rejected the import of Canadian gas. The major reasons given were summed up in these words. In the absence of any intergovernmental agreement providing for a continuity of supply they, the F.P.C., dare not commit the northwest United States gas market to a foreign source of supply.
1 raise this point because I believe strongly that had the government seen these dangers earlier, had they recognized them-as I think perhaps I did at that time, because of the sources of information available to us in the publishing field out west-they would have taken action one or two years ago to remove the ground for arguments being voiced against Canada in the United States in order to ensure the capture of that market.
In March, 1954, Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago, the question first came up of the supplying of gas to the United States middle-western states. At that time the minister made certain statements. The minister made to the press a statement which I quoted in the house on March 30, 1954, along these lines, as reported at page 3494 of Hansard:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is a man of great talent, energy and bluntness. He has established a reputation for facing up to issues. I trust that he will, during this debate, face up in full to the facts regarding a Canadian gas policy. He did not face facts when he indicated to the press after the jperger of the Trans-Canada and Western pipe line companies that the line to eastern Canada had priority, that no gas would go to the United States until supply to our east was secured, and that gas would go to Minneapolis 50433-98
Power, Fluids and Gas
only on an interruptible basis. Surely he is fully aware of the various economic studies of the all-Canadian line to which I have referred.
This was on March 30, 1954.
Surely also he knows that the tying in of Minneapolis improves the economics of an ultimate line to eastern Canada, and that the large financial investment required by the Minneapolis company in order to take Canadian gas dictates that it must be a firm, not an interruptible supply.
That brings us up to date on these amendments. From the fact that he introduced these amendments I am sure the minister is now fully aware that United States consumers, just like Canadian consumers, when it comes to natural gas are concerned about security of supply and price. They must be so concerned, just like Canadians. After all, pipe lines involve extremely large capital expenditures for the transport pipe line and distribution pipe-line systems. In addition to that, every single customer using gas must make a sizeable investment in furnaces, stoves, gas heaters, water heaters and so forth, and naturally he must have a reasonable assurance that the supply of gas is going to be secure for some time to come.
I said earlier that by the passage of these amendments we do not ensure the capture of United States markets, but we change the outlook from one of hopelessness so far as getting those markets is concerned to one where we now have-if government policy changes along with the amendments to this ac't-a reasonable chance of capturing markets which are needed to support gas pipeline systems both east and west from Alberta.
I think it is now generally recognized by this government and by most members of this house that neither east nor west from Alberta can economically sound gas pipe lines be built if they are confined to Canadian routes and Canadian markets. We must have United States outlets served by both pipe-line systems in order to make a project which can provide a reasonable price to the producer, which can hold the price to the consumer down to a level he is willing to pay, and which can be built without soaking the Canadian taxpayer.
The minister made some references to the growth of the oil and gas industry. Among other things he stated that the gas reserves proved in 1954 in western Canada amounted to 4,000 billion cubic feet, or 4 trillion cubic feet were the words he used. In addition to that, oil reserves increased last year by some 600 million barrels. Then he went on with some estimates of current total reserves of oil and gas, I believe 2\ billion barrels of oil now proved and something like 16 trillion cubic feet of gas. I was glad to hear the minister use these particular figures, with one exception. I might
1534	HOUSE OF
Power, Fluids and Gas say that these figures originated in an article written by me two months ago, based on my usual year-end analysis of the oil and gas industry. I was happy to see that the minister places sufficient trust in the source to use those figures as being reasonably accurate.
The only figure he used which I disagree with was his figure of present proved gas reserves in the west. He stated the figure was something like 16 trillion cubic feet. The error there, sir, is that I think the minister used figures only for the province of Alberta. When we add something over 3 trillion cubic feet for northeast British Columbia and a thousand billion feet for Saskatchewan, the actual total proved reserve of gas in the west is now at least 20 trillion cubic feet.
Going a little further on this question of gas reserves, during the past three years-[DOT] and the source of these figures is the same as that of the figures quoted by the minister- western Canada gas reserves have increased by a total of about 12,000 billion cubic feet; in other words, an annual rate of 4,000 billion cubic feet in 1952, 1953 and 1954. This tremendous increase was partly due to discoveries incidental to oil exploration and partly due to exploration specifically made for natural gas, spurred by the hope that political controversy would end and markets for gas at fair prices would be opened up by the start of gas pipe-line development. How much more gas remains to be discovered no one of course knows for sure, but all geological authorities, including the authorities of this government, agree that the undiscovered reserves are many times those known today.
Western Canada has something over 700,000 square miles of geologically favourable territory for oil and gas, and this tremendous territory has so far been explored to an intensity of less than 5 per cent of the exploration to date in the major United States oil and gas regions. Huge reserves still remain to be discovered, but the rate of discovery will depend upon the degree of incentive provided. The best incentives, of course, are markets as fast as possible for the current shut-in reserves at prices that offer to producers some prospect of a reasonable profit. One year's gas discoveries, 4,000 billion cubic feet, are sufficient, I may say, to support and to serve the markets of one major pipe line for some 20 years.
Thus, during the last three years alone new gas reserves discovered have been adequate to support and service three major pipe lines for 20 years, but right now of course only two are proposed, one east and one west. So market planning is still not keeping pace with discoveries, and western Canada's gas surplus is continuing to grow. A single gas pipe line


east from Alberta, free to serve the economic and available markets in southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Minneapolis area, northern Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, plus the mass markets of southern Ontario and Quebec as far east as Montreal, could start off by selling less than 140 billion cubic feet of gas the first year of operation and might get up to some 200 billion cubic feet after five years of market build-up. At the western Canada gas discovery rate of the past three years, such an eastern pipe line serving both Canadian and United States markets would absorb less than 5 per cent of the gas reserves added to western Canada's total. A single gas pipe line west over the Rockies to serve British Columbia and the Pacific northwestern states could absorb little more than 100 billion cubic feet its first year of operation and might get up to 180 billion cubic feet by its fifth year. At the west's discovery rate of the past three years such a western pipe line would, in serving both Canadian and United States markets, absorb less than 5 per cent of gas added to reserves.
Thus the first two proposed major pipe lines, between them serving all really important Canadian markets along their routes between Vancouver and Montreal, and presently contemplated United States markets in the Pacific northwest, midwest and great lakes areas of the United States, would utilize only some 240 billion cubic feet their first year and perhaps up to 380 billion cubic feet by their fifth year. Based on the discovery rate of 4,000 billion cubic feet yearly, the two initial pipe lines would use their first year an amount equal to only about 6 per cent of the anticipated reserve growth that year and by the fifth year, assuming the same discovery rate, would use less than 10 per cent of reserve growth. If there is incentive to explore, there is every reason to expect no decline in reserve growth rate.
In the two years it would take to actually start construction and complete the proposed two initial pipe lines, additional reserves proved up might well amount to another 8,000 billion cubic feet, equal to the 20 years' needs of the two pipe lines, thus replacing in full the volume of reserves that would be dedicated now to get these pipe lines rolling. Even when these first pipe lines started operation their requirements for both Canadian and United States markets would amount to less than one-tenth of the anticipated discovery rate. In other words around 9 cubic feet of gas reserves would be added to the shut-in surplus for each one cubic foot used for the two initial pipe lines.
This figure of an accumulation of 9 cubic feet to shut-in reserves for every cubic foot

we would use with the two pipe lines operating compares with the picture of the last three years of some 30 cubic feet being added to the shut-in gas reserves of western Canada for every single cubic foot put to use in the markets of the prairie provinces. I think on the basis of gas reserve growth alone the government would be very well justified in going perhaps even a little further than the minister went today in planning a gas policy based not upon fear of shortage for Canada's long-term needs but rather a frank recognition that the problem is not one of shortage but of continually expanding gas reserves which are going to require not one pipe line each direction but a number of pipe lines within the next few years to absorb more than a small fraction of the reserves that are being developed. Obviously, sir, that makes more and more essential the capturing of outlets south of the border as well as those within Canada.
I do not think at this stage we should go into any detail as to government policy on pipe-line routes, but in view of some statements that have been made in the last few days by spokesmen for the government I think perhaps I should make some reference to a report which has been extensively quoted by these spokesmen in supporting the idea of the all-Canadian gas policy. The report to which I want to make reference is a study completed early in 1953 by the Stanford research institute and the University of Western Ontario. That report has been described-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is what the hon. member going to say now relevant to the principle of the bill?


Carl Olof Nickle: Very much so, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Or is he just taking the bill as a pretext to go a little further afield?


Carl Olof Nickle: I am going to relate the Stanford survey directly to the terms of the bill. The Stanford survey is referred to by Dr. George S. Hume, director general of scientific services of the government, as prepared "by one of the best research organizations in the United States." In other words I think its conclusions can be said to be quite unbiased and quite accurate. Basically this survey was an attempt to analyse, without prejudice, the various pipe-line routes to markets east and west from the gas fields of western Canada. The basic conclusions, so far as east of Alberta is concerned, may be summed up in this way; that an all-Canadian pipe line, restricted to a Canadian route and to Canadian markets, was the least economic of several alternatives.
50433-98i
Power, Fluids and Gas


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I readily confess that my knowledge of the industry referred to, and the resources referred to in this bill is very limited. But I have looked at the various clauses of this bill, and it is difficult for me to understand how the hon. member is going to convince me that the various pipe lines and their location, whether they be allCanadian routes or whether they extend to other markets, is related to this act which is to regulate the exportation of power and fluids and the importation of gas. I would imagine it is always feasible to relate something which is most remote from the bill, because by various means of reasoning one can always get back to the title which is wide enough to cover almost any range, I suppose.
We are discussing the principle of regulation, and I have followed the hon. member very attentively. I was very much interested in what he had to say, but I am afraid that in the last six minutes at his disposal he went into a field which is perhaps quite foreign to the principle of this bill. It may be one of his subsidiary arguments that is causing me pain for nothing, or perhaps my knowledge of this bill is not sufficient. However, I shall ask the hon. member to co-operate with me, as I know he wants to do. I am sure if it is not relevant he will not pursue his argument.


Carl Olof Nickle: I fully understand your reasoning, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure you that what I am going to say about the Stanford survey is being said to support the principle of this bill which removes some of the restrictions on the exportation of gas in order to best serve the interests of Canada. I want to make some reference to the Minneapolis market, and the middle-western United States, because the minister made reference to it this afternoon. I can best do that very briefly by quoting from this particular survey.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that a survey that is readily available? Is it something that is at the disposal of members of this house? I do not want to have a recurrence of a debate on a certain report that emanated from private sources, about which the hon. member will recall we had some difficulty. If he intends, with the help of this survey, to contradict what has been said by other members in this house, then he might be using a document emanating from persons outside this house to contradict statements made in this house.


Carl Olof Nickle: The full text of the survey is of public record. I am sure that members of the government as well as members on this side of the house who are concerned with
1536	HOUSE OF
Power, Fluids and Gas the subject have seen this report. I have a copy of it for those who may not have seen it and who are interested. I might say the Stanford survey was referred to in this house last March by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham). I believe his reference to it places the report in the realm of what you might call public information. This Stanford survey concluded that a Canadian pipe line to the east would be the least economical of several alternatives, because it would involve the highest transportation costs per unit of gas.


Mr. Prudham:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Would he mind quoting the instance when I was supposed to have referred to the Stanford report in the house?


Carl Olof Nickle: Yes. It was on March 30, 1954, page 3496 of Hansard. The Stanford survey then took the next alternative, a Canadian-United States route but limited to Canadian markets and concluded that by the fifth year of operation, that is by the time the markets had been reasonably well built up, the Canadian-United States route would result in a transport cost of 2-8 cents per thousand cubic feet less than the all-Canadian route. On the basis of a trillion cubic feet of gas moved, there would be a saving of about $28 million.
The report then went on to consider the addition of United States markets, and stated that if the Minneapolis market were added to this pipe line the transport cost for all gas moved over the system by the fifth year would be reduced by another two cents a thousand. This again would represent a saving of $20 million per one trillion cubic feet.
The report then went further to deal with other possible United States markets in the great lakes area, added to or in lieu of the Minneapolis market, which would add another penny per thousand cubic feet in savings in transport costs, in other words a saving of another $10 million per one trillion cubic feet. The maximum saving in transport cost for a pipe line from Alberta to the east, the Stanford survey figures, by changing the route and by the addition of United States markets to those of the prairies and eastern Canada, would be 5-8 cents per thousand cubic feet or a mere matter of the equivalent of $58 million per one trillion cubic feet.
The market commitments to carry such a pipe-line system and finance it would total around 5,000 billion cubic feet for delivery over a 20-year period. In other words, using this Stanford survey the maximum possible saving on 5 trillion cubic feet would be about $290 million, to be shared by the producers and consumers in Canada. I believe it would
fMr. Nickle.1

also eliminate the need for any soaking of the Canadian taxpayer by way of direct or indirect subsidies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question? As a contract has been worked out for delivery of gas into the state of Washington, I am sure my hon. friend knows the price of gas delivered at the boundary. Does he suggest that there is a bonanza that could be obtained by shipping gas in that direction, and that there would be some great saving to divide between the producers and consumers?


Carl Olof Nickle: No, Mr. Speaker, the present contract between Westcoast and the Pacific Northwest Corporation, the one to which the minister refers, would result in a very low price to the northeastern British Columbia and northern Alberta gas producer. As a matter of fact it is an even lower price than the Alberta producer would derive by signing the existing contract for a trans-Canada pipe line.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Could I take it that these markets south of the border are not just as rosy as my hon. friend would make out?


Carl Olof Nickle: I am not suggesting that either, Mr. Speaker. Taking the contract to which the minister has referred, it has a price at the United States border south of Vancouver of 22J cents a thousand cubic feet for something like 300 million cubic feet a day delivered to that point. If that price were related to gas in southern Alberta it would involve a price at a central point in the fields of southern Alberta of around 15 cents a thousand cubic feet compared, I believe, to around 6 or 6-5 cents offered in the Peace river district for gas sold to the same area. The only point I wish to make is that I think perhaps the minister has indicated, from his comments in the house last June, that perhaps some slightly different program than Peace river gas to the northwest might have been worked out for the benefit of the consumer and the producer.
Dealing with the matter of price, since the minister brought it up, let us take a look at the Trans-Canada price, running east. We have a price offered at a central point in each field in Alberta of 10 cents per thousand feet, escalating one-quarter cent a year over a period of 20 years. That, of course, is a gross price. The actual wellhead value is that price less the cost to the producer of gathering that gas, stripping it of its liquid content and its sulphur, and moving it to central points in each field.
On the basis of present costs in Alberta gas fields that 10-cent price for gathered gas

would swing back into an average of roughly 4 cents a thousand feet at well head, which would be the price to the gas producer and his provincial government partners, which means the people of Alberta or any other province exporting gas. Now, that actual well-head net of 4 cents a thousand we might relate to the price of gas in Toronto.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I rise on a point of order. I do not mind the hon. member poisoning the wells, but I do not think he should do it on this bill. I would point out that this bill has nothing to do with the buying and selling of gas, or the price of gas. It simply has to do with the export and import of gas. What that has to do with the price at the well head I do not know.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should think it would have a lot to do with it.


Carl Olof Nickle: I shall accede to the minister's suggestion. I think myself that perhaps the question of price is out of order in this debate. But when the minister mentioned it I thought perhaps I could go along on the same line. If the minister has no objection I would be glad to go along a little further.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no
objection.


Mr. Speaker:: At this moment I would have objection. May I say I have allowed the hon. member a few extra minutes, because I had interrupted him. However, his time expired at 9.01, according to the information I have here. I have given him four extra minutes, because I had the temerity to interrupt him to indicate that I believed he was out of order at a certain point. So at this moment I will have to ask him to discontinue his speech, unless he has unanimous consent to carry on.


Carl Olof Nickle: If I could have unanimous consent I would finish my remarks in a few sentences.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Carl Olof Nickle: To get back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier I do support these amendments. I do believe that the government is taking a proper step in recognizing that the gas problem is one of surplus, not of shortage, and recognizing that we must have an American market. The amendments to this bill will perhaps open the door to a much greater extent than has been the case in the past, and will help to capture markets which are essential.
Power, Fluids and Gas
With those comments I trust that these amendments will be passed quickly, along with solutions to the other related problems of the pipe-line proposal now before the United States federal power commission. This should make it possible at least to give the company which would make first use of these amendments a chance to present a strong case before the United States authorities; if given a reasonable chance, to get markets in the United States; to get pipe-line projects advanced, and to have at least one gas pipe line started out of western Canada before another full year rolls around.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister deal with the questions raised concerning the administration of this act, and with other problems which arise in connection with these new sources of energy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, this act is administered in the Department of Trade and Commerce. All the talents of the department are brought to bear on any problem arising under the act. The standards branch have immediate charge of administering this act. The deputy minister's office, the director of economics and his associate director also study the act. Other departments are brought in if problems arise outside this department.
It is very difficult to gather up talent resting in persons with a good many other duties and put them in a department to deal with nothing but problems arising under this act, and similar problems. In Canada we have a limited but a very able and hard-working civil service. To take men out of various departments, put them into one branch or one body and say to them, "Your exclusive duties will be to administer the export of energy" would be, I suggest, a very wasteful way of using the talents of the men who have to do with the administration of these acts in the various departments where they serve.


Howard Charles Green: I notice that there are several petitions for the incorporation of pipe-line companies coming before the house this session. There can be no doubt that there has been a great expansion in the production of oil and gas. With the international rivers authority being taken by the dominion government, many questions relating to power will have to be considered.
Would it not be a practical way of handling the matter if steps were taken to set up a national energy board along the lines of the
1538	HOUSE OF
Power, Fluids and Gas air transport board? Under such a board experts would sit together and hear applications for permits under the Pipe Lines Act. They would also, no doubt, hear applications for licences under the exportation of power and fluids and importation of gas act. We would then have a body of men making a continuous study of the problem. It would seem that eventually something of that kind would have to be done, rather than leaving it to so many different departments to deal with different aspects of the subject.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Chairman, a body of that kind would have perhaps no more than 10 applications every year- indeed, I would think 10 would be a large number-for the export of energy. Such a board would have to consist of very competent men, because the problems coming before it would be involved. Legal questions would arise, and there would be problems concerning which experience in the commodity would be essential.
Now, all that talent is available in the government service, talent of a very high order. It may be found in the international joint commission; it may be in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, or in the Department of External Affairs. But wherever it is, it can be drawn upon to solve any problem that may present itself in connection with these export permits.
It seems that an ad hoc committee drawn from recognized experts in the government service is a method of meeting the situation much preferable to setting up a permanent board which would certainly not have enough problems to occupy its full time throughout the year. I have heard it suggested that the air transport board ties up a number of experts who have not a sufficient number of problems to occupy their full time. I do not agree with that view myself, because I think a specialized knowledge is being created in this board that is necessary in dealing with problems of air transport. But I do not think the problems of the export of energy are sufficient in number to warrant a permanent board of the type suggested by my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Licences.
Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the reference in this clause to the surplus remaining after due allowance has been made for distribution to customers for use in Canada, may I ask the minister a question? If he proposes to tell me that I should wait until some other occasion I will not press it, but it does seem to me that in view of the long statement that the


hon. member for Calgary South was able to make, it might be fair to ask the minister whether he has anything to say on this bill regarding the questions that have arisen about Canadian gas policy, particularly the question of whether there is to be any government .assistance in the financing of the trans-Canada pipe line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have already said that when the government is in a position to make an announcement regarding the trans-Canada pipe line-I presume that is the subject of the question-the announcement will be made. I hope it will be made very shortly, but I am not able to announce all the particulars this evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the minister say
"shortly"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, very shortly; but I am not in a position to make the announcement tonight.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I listened with interest to what the minister said about the ad hoc board and to his explanation about the various expert people who will be found in various departments, and it seemed to me good sense. Am I not correct in believing that at the present time there are two or three authorities in fact who may have to deal with the question of export? Will the minister explain, or refer me to that part of the act which makes perfectly clear, how the ad hoc board to which he referred is to be constituted, and how it is to act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have today an interdepartmental committee on energy. Any matter having to do with energy is referred to that committee. It is not a committee established by act of parliament; it is simply a committee of civil servants who have duties relating to the field of energy. The Department of Trade and Commerce have to do with the exporting of energy, all energy, and the Department of Trade and Commerce are privileged to bring this committee together, to bring the experts together to discuss any problem of export of energy with which the department is confronted.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I suppose that would be in an advisory capacity.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are consulted. The decision rests with the minister of the department, who recommends the issuance of the permit to the governor in council. The governor in council of course is responsible for issuing any export permit for energy. But the minister has a responsible official who is a member of the committee on energy. He is able to consult his colleagues

on the committee, and the minister can rely on the fact that when he receives the report of his responsible officer he is receiving with it the consensus of the committee on energy consisting of civil servants of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Does this committee have anything whatever to do with an application before the board of transport commissioners for a permit to construct a pipe line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The board of transport commissioners is a judicial body, as my hon. friend knows. Members of the committee appear before the board of transport commissioners and give the board the benefit of their views on individual applications. Mr. Davis, who has been referred to this evening, always appears for the Department of Trade and Commerce. When the question of crossing an international border is considered, Mr. Davis gives the views of the department as to whether crossing the border is in conformity with government policy. Other experts give their views on matters relating to the activities of the department to which they belong.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give the composition of this interdepartmental committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I could not give their names. Our representative on the committee is John Davis. Who his associates are from other departments, it is hard to say. I presume Dr. Hume represents my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Finance is represented, and also the coal board. There is also a representative of the international joint commission, I should think.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any representative from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; water
resources.


Howard Charles Green: A representative of that department sits in with the committee?


George Prudham: Yes; also a representative from the Department of Labour, because labour enters into coal mining.


Howard Charles Green: This is the clause which contains the only provision for protection of the customers in Canada. Will the minister deal with the plan he has in mind for making sure there is no relaxation from the course that has been followed under the old act, which does contain more stringent provisions dealing with this question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I doubt whether the provisions are more stringent. The licences for the export of electricity are limited to one year. And we believe-


Howard Charles Green: That is a continuing feature?
Power, Fluids and Gas


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a continuing policy. We think the experts can determine whether there will be surplus power for the duration of that licence; that is, for the duration of one year. As my hon. friend knows, the only licences that are given for electricity are for surplus interruptible power. And the fact that it is interruptible is pinned to the licence. Therefore if at any time the power is no longer surplus the export can be cut off and the customer will have no recourse whatever. He simply buys interruptible power. So I think all the protection for Canadian consumers that anyone can reasonably require is provided. The condition is put in, if it is applicable, which it would be probably in connection with electrical current, that all Canadian consumers will be supplied before power can be exported. The regulations will provide that such a clause shall be inserted. I think it usually is inserted in power contracts.


Howard Charles Green: What about the provision which is contained in the export act that the price to the United States consumer must not be lower than the price to the Canadian consumer? How is that going to be covered under the new bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are very few cases where interruptible power that is exported competes with interruptible power sold in Canada. We assume that most utilities are owned by the provinces or by private companies. There is an export tax of $2 per horsepower on power exported, in any event, and whoever is responsible for recommending the licence could satisfy himself that power is not being sold out of Canada even on an interruptible basis at a lower price than interruptible power is being sold within Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Is that written into the licence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The regulations do have a provision which reads:
The price charged by any licensee for any electricity, petroleum or natural gas exported by him shall not be lower than the price at which electricity, petroleum or natural gas, respectively, is supplied by him or by his supplier in similar quantities and under similar conditions of sale for consumption in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: That regulation will be reenacted under the new act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: The licence apparently refers to surplus power or surplus gas. For example, I have here the amended licence to West-coast Transmission Company Limited issued in April, 1953, and it refers to the export of surplus natural gas. The order in council authorizing that also contains those words.

Power, Fluids and Gas Just how do the minister and the department decide when power or gas is surplus and what power or gas is surplus? When the minister spoke this afternoon he gave a definition of surplus power and a definition of surplus gas. Are those definitions to be written into the regulations, or is this to be left to the judgment of the officials who issue the licence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suppose my hon. friend is referring to natural gas?


Howard Charles Green: To both power and gas.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The province in which the supply is found issues a certificate. It allocates the gas for the purpose. It allocates that gas after it has determined that other resources within the province are ample to take care of the requirements of the province. Then the federal authority reviews the situation to make sure there are no markets within Canada that should be served or could be served economically as a deduction from the amount approved for export by the province. On the basis of that it is determined that a certain amount safely can be allowed to go to export. We are dealing there with a commodity where the supply is constantly expanding, and we expect that to be the case for a good many years. So I think it is necessary to take the expert opinion of the officers, both the responsible officers in the province where the gas originates and the responsible officers in the federal government who advise the government on matters of that kind.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think the
minister mentioned a moment ago that none of this gas or electricity would be exported except on an interruptible basis.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was speaking of electricity. I said that electricity is always exported under a licence good for one year only and on an interruptible basis. It is impossible to sell gas-


Charles Edward Johnston: Are those the terms of the present contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of all contracts that have been made within about the last 15 years. Some of the early contracts made before the first world war were not on an interruptible basis, and it was the experience of that early practice that brought about the more recent plan of selling electricity on an annual basis and under an interruptible contract.


Charles Edward Johnston: That would not apply to the export of gas?
Mn Howe (Port Arthur): No, it cannot. The reason is that there must be a continuity

of supply in the case of gas. It would be impossible for a utility to rely on gas from a source which was interruptible. In the case of gas we have to assess the situation to make sure that we have gas surplus to the requirements of Canada, either present or future.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am glad the minister has given that explanation. As I listened to him I just could not understand how any contract could be entered into, particularly for gas, on an interruptible basis. The minister assures us that that is not the case, but if it were the case it would simply be a prohibition on the export of gas.


Howard Charles Green: This afternoon I understood the minister to give definitions of what constituted surplus power and surplus gas. Is that merely a rule of thumb that is followed in the department, or is it to be set out in the regulations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the policy of the department. It would be impossible to set this out in the regulations. The policy is a guide to those who recommend to the minister that a licence be issued. It is a definite policy, and has been so for many years.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be wiser to have it set out in the regulations so there would be legal effect to it? The way it is now I presume that it could be changed at a moment's notice. It really has no great effect when it is simply a type of directive. Would it not be an advantage to have it set out in the regulations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I think it could hardly be set out in the regulations. That is the pattern on which the particular facts applying to an application are judged. Each application is considered on its own set of facts and is measured against the yardstick of departmental policy. The recommendation is made accordingly. To have a set of principles set out in the regulations and then have judgments made on the facts of the case might lead to legal difficulties in subsequent years. I think the department must be responsible for recommending each individual permit.


Howard Charles Green: In effect each case is dealt with separately and on its own merits rather than being based on a general rule or general regulation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Am I right in thinking there is no definite statement made as to the way licences are issued? I am rather

surprised to find that there is no minister named as the minister in charge. Section 3 reads:
Subject to the regulations and to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve with respect to each licence, licences may be granted for-
Does that mean that the method of granting licences is simply by order in council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is the way and the only way it can be done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: Each and every licence requires an order in council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 10.
Mr. Dickey:: I am going to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to move as an amendment a new clause 10. This amendment will involve the renumbering of the subsequent clauses 10 and 11 as clauses 11 and 12. The amendment will be a new clause 10, which is as follows:
10. As soon as practicable after the 31st day of December of each year, the Minister of Trade and Commerce shall prepare and lay before parliament a report of the operations under this act for that year.
And also:
That clauses 10 and 11 be renumbered as clauses 11 and 12 respectively.


Jean Lesage: I so move.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid I forgot all about that. I do not quite understand these words "as soon as practicable". Does that wording appear in any other statute providing for the filing of a report?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those are Liberal words.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be wiser to have a set time?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It would sometimes be embarrassing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think there would be any objection to having say three months' grace, but I believe you might get it faster under this provision. I think these are the words in the old act, if I am not mistaken. The old act called for a report, and it was followed in drawing this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether this is the only place in the bill where a reference is made to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or to any minister? Usually in an act
Power, Fluids and Gas there is something to indicate what minister is responsible for its administration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The governor in council takes the responsibility for everything done under the act. In other words no licence can be issued except by the governor in council. The clause we are now inserting is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who in fact makes a recommendation-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not far removed from the governor in council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He sometimes appears here. As a matter of fact the Minister of Trade and Commerce recommends an export licence to the governor in council, and since the records are in his department the Minister of Trade and Commerce will make the report.


Howard Charles Green: I have only the revised statutes here. In that statute I cannot find any reference to the tabling of the report.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that I was mistaken when I said it was in the old act. I thought it was. In any event, in revising the act we decided that clause should go in. As a matter of fact, I felt sure that my hon. friend would ask that it be inserted.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid I am slipping.


Clarence Decatur Howe: So I asked that it be inserted before he could do so.


Howard Charles Green: Would there be any objection to putting in a provision that the report should be made within a certain period of time rather than leaving it "as soon as practicable"? That is a bad precedent. It is much better to have it definite.


Clarence Decatur Howe: "As soon as practicable" means as soon as it can be done.


Howard Charles Green: It might be five years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The act calls for a report. I think the clause is all right.


Howard Charles Green: For example, I believe the Canadian maritime commission are required to file their report within three months.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We shall get this report in much sooner than that if parliament is sitting.


Howard Charles Green: In other legislation there is some provision for the filing of a report within a certain time. I think that would be better than simply saying "as soon as practicable".


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister put a time limit in the clause?

Business of the House


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I think the clause is all right as it is with "as soon as practicable".


Howard Charles Green: Has there ever been a report filed or laid before parliament?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think not.


Howard Charles Green: There has never been any report laid before parliament?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think not.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall this bill be read a third time now?


Howard Charles Green: Next sitting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand that the other place is short of work. Would there be any objection to giving the bill third reading now? There is practically no amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This bill would not occupy them long in the other place. They would deal with it in five minutes.


Howard Charles Green: The other house is not likely to be sitting on Monday. Perhaps there is no reason why this bill could not be taken up first thing Monday. I do not think there is anything further to be said, but some of the people who are interested in it are away.


Mr. Speaker:: This bill will be read a third time at the next sitting of this house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: Would the leader of the house be good enough to indicate what is the next business we should take up? All the business announced last evening has been disposed of.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In view of the fact that we have done a great day's work today, I move the adjournment of the house.


Howard Charles Green: Could we know what business is to be taken up on Monday?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just a minute.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)
moves, seconded by Mr. Gardiner, that the house do now adjourn. Is the motion agreed to?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I think the ministers are finding out what business they are taking up on Monday.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it has been agreed that the debate on unemployment will take place on Tuesday.


Howard Charles Green: I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will never again complain of the opposition not doing business fast enough.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I greatly regret that we had not the advantage of another 20 minutes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We ran out of
business.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, no; I announced that we would take all the rest of the resolutions on the order paper. On Monday we shall begin with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) with respect to the Railway Act and the railwayhighway crossing problem.


Howard Charles Green: I wonder whether that resolution could be allowed to stand over and not be taken on Monday? I refer to the grade crossing resolution.


Walter Edward Harris: Then we shall take the one in the name of the Minister of Transport with respect to loans to the New Westminster harbour commissioners; the resolution with respect to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour with respect to the Government Employees Compensation Act; the one in the name of the Minister of Finance with respect to the Public Service Superannuation Act, and then the two in the name of the Minister of National Revenue with respect to double taxation and our treaty with Ireland.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.44 p.m.

Monday, February 28, 1955